- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned award dated 29.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/M.A.C.T., Etah in M.A.C.P. No. 142 of 2000. By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,30,000 on the age of 45 years of the deceased by applying the multiplier of '13'. The appellant has prayed for enhancement of the aforesaid amount on the ground that compensation awarded in lieu of death of deceased is too meagre. According to the counsel for the appellant the Tribunal has accepted the factum of accident and service of the deceased, therefore, it ought to have awarded the compensation by applying appropriate multiplier instead of coming to an imaginary figure without any basis.
(2.) It is vehemently argued that the amount awarded for loss of love and affections and mental agony was also essential to be awarded to the amount as part of compensation, but in not doing so the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in deciding the claim petition: that it was fully established from the evidence adduced on behalf of claimants/appellants that they were dependant upon income of the deceased hence the amount of compensation awarded is too less and liable to be enhanced in accordance with law. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed an illegality by failing to assess the income of the deceased while income of the deceased was Rs. 3.325 from service and Rs. 500 from extra labour is fully proved by oral and documentary evidence. It is lastly argued that in any case the learned Tribunal has failed to comply the 2nd Schedule under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Clause 3 whereof provides compensation for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate in case of death. The impugned award is based on conjecture and surmises hence it is liable to be enhanced.
(3.) We have perused the award and find that from the post-mortem report the appellant had completed 45 years of age and the Tribunal has not recorded any finding that age of the appellant is less than 45 years of age. Moreover, the appellants could not prove the income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,325 per month. We find from the record that Mahavir Singh (since deceased) was a work charge employee in P.W.D. but the salary certificate issued for him has not been proved. Only a carbon copy of the certificate had been filed before the Court which was not proved according to law. There is also no mention as to why the original salary certificate was not filed before the Tribunal. Regarding claim of Rs. 500 per month being earned by him from agriculture, suffice it to say that the wife of the deceased, i.e., the appellant has admitted in her statement that her husband did not own any agricultural land. Hence the Tribunal in these circumstances has rightly taken notional Income of Rs. 15,000 per annum and deducted 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal and living expenses and calculated dependency on 2/3rd of his notional income @ Rs. 15,000 per annum. The age of the appellant on record was above 45 years, therefore, multiplier of '13' has rightly been applied and according to Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The son of the appellant Sri Vinod Kumar has also been given compassionate appointment in the department, therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances in totality and applying the principle of balancing the award on funeral expenses, loss of consortium and alleged loss of estate etc. by providing employment to family member of the deceased the Tribunal has rightly computed dependency as (Rs. 15.000 x 2/3) x 13 = 1,30,000 as compensation payable to the claimants. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award which is fair and reasonable and is accordingly upheld. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.;