NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAKSHABEN LAXMANSINGH THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah on behalf of appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd.

(2.) THESE two appeals are filed by National Insurance Company ltd. challenging common award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 631 of 2003 and macp No. 632 of 2003, Exh.-60 dated 13/8/2008. By said award, Claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,82,400/- in MACP No. 631 of 2003 where and Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,04,400/- in macp No. 632 of 2003.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah raised number of contentions before Claims Tribunal in written arguments, Exh.-59. The contention is raised that identification of the vehicle is doubtful means vehicle itself is not involved and after three months, panchnama was carried out and in FIR also, unknown vehicle is mentioned. No number has been also mentioned in FIR. Therefore, he submitted that it is a duty of claimant to prove the involvement of vehicle and negligence of the driver of the said vehicle before Claims Tribunal by proper evidence. He submitted that in respect to claim petition no. 631 of 2003, the widow of deceased expired subsequently and therefore, deleted vide Exh. 23 and now claimant is daughter but in claim petition no. 632 of 2003, sister is not legally entitle because she is married sister and cannot consider to be a dependent and in such circumstances 2/3 amount is to be deducted inspite of 1/3. He submitted that owner has filed affidavit before Claims tribunal that his vehicle was not involved in accident and inspite of notice has been served to driver, no response is given by driver therefore, before Tribunal involvement of vehicle is not proved by claimants. He also raised contention in respect to compensation awarded in favour of claimant when brother died. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed error in awarding just compensation as compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is on higher side and no care has been taken while applying multiplier. Therefore, interference of this Court is required. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah submitted that in absence of cogent evidence in respect to income, the income of deceased Himanshubhai assessed by Claims Tribunal of Rs. 2,000/- as a notional income is incorrect. He also raised contention that in absence of evidence of income, future prospects should not have to be considered as Rs. 3,000/- which is considered by Tribunal. Except that no other submissions is made by learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah before this Court.