- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant. The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 15.11.2002 determining the amount of Rs. 2,98,000/- as just compensation to which the dependants of the deceased Hori Lal were found entitled to on account of the death having been caused in an accident involving the offending vehicle which was insured by the present appellant covering the risk.
(2.) The only submission urged and prayed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that taking into consideration the evidence and the materials brought on record the income of the deceased could not be held to be Rs. 2,200/- per month and the Tribunal has erred in not holding it to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum only which is the notional income as contemplated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(3.) So far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the witnesses examined by the claimants in support of their claim. The wife of the deceased had been examined as P.W. 1. She had asserted that she was receiving Rs. 3,500/- per month from the deceased for household expenses. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witness to discredit his testimony. Further, the other two witnesses had also asserted that the income of the deceased ranged between Rs. 200/- and 250/- per day.;