- (1.) SATISH Chandra, J. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.2.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge-Court No. 2, Unnao in M.A.C. No. 72/2006 where a compensation of Rs. 1,72,000 (Rupees one lacs seventy two thousand) was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents alongwith interest.
(2.) THE brief facts, in narrow compass, are that on 23rd of March, 2005, deceased Shailendra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for short) was travelling in U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 32T/6546 from Lucknow to Bashiratganj, at the midnight when he was alighting at Bashiratganj, suddenly the driver has started the Bus and due to jerk, the deceased has fallen down and was crashed by the Bus. He died on the spot. The deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) per month),, from M/s. Deep Wines. He was aged about 25 years, but in the absence of the income proof, the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees' fifteen thousand only) per annum and applied the multiplier of 17 and finally, the compensation was awarded for Rs. 1,72.000 (Rupees one lacs seventy two thousand only). Not being satisfied, both the parties have filed appeals before this Court. With this background, the learned counsel for the appellant (U.P.S.R.T.C.) submits that there was no Bus bearing No. U.P.-32T/6546 in the fleet of U.P.S.R.T.C. He further submits that some Samrendra alias Tinku, who informed about the accident and death of the deceased, was also travelling in the same Bus, so there is every possibility that the ticket produced by the respondents belongs to Tinku. According to him, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that even in the charge-sheet dated 25.6.2006, the police authorities have mentioned the Bus No. U. P. 32 T/6546, which cannot be denied and ignored by the learned trial court and cannot be resumed by the Court that the number of the Bus was U.P.-32Z/6546. No source was disclosed to mention the Bus number.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per year which is too meagre. He prays that the compensation may be enhanced.;