1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Main), Bharuch, dated 22.07.2011, rendered in M.A.C.P. 501 of 2010, whereby the tribunal allowed the said claim petition and awarded Rs.1,54,500/- along with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of application, till its realization.
2. The brief facts leading to the filling of the present appeal are that on account of a vehicular accident which took place, on 21.03.2010, minor son of respondent No.1 lost his life. Respondent No.1, therefore, being heir and legal representative of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated. He, lastly, contended that the tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the deceased and respondent No.1 were travelling in a goods vehicle without goods, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal and has prayed to dismiss the same as being without merits.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. The order under challenge in this appeal is passed in a claim petition under Section-163A of the M.V. Act. The deceased was aged about three years and since at such an age he cannot be expected to have any independent income, the tribunal has, hence, rightly assessed his notional income at Rs.15,000/- as laid down under the second schedule provided for determining the amount of compensation under Section- 163A of the Act. The tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which is also, looking to the age of the deceased, in consonance with the Second Schedule. Hence, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation, multiplier etc. require to be rejected.
7. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to goods vehicle is concerned, it is an admitted position that no such contention was raised before the tribunal, and hence, the same also requires to be rejected.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and is DISMISSED. No order as to costs. Since, first appeal is disposed of, civil applicant will not survive and it also stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/