SATISH CHANDRA,J - (1.) Present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred for the enhancement of the compensation, against the judgment and award dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.474 of 2011 (Bajrang Prasad and another vs. Smt. Madhu Goel and another), whereby an award of Rs.1,83,793/ - along with simple interest @6% has been awarded against the insurance company.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.2011 at about 2.00 pm, Km. Jyoti, was going along with her sister Neha to meet her friend. When they reached near over bridge, Nirala Nagar, from the opposite direction, a Car baring No. UP 32 DR 5013 was coming, whose driver was driving it very rashly, negligently and dashed Km. Jyoti, who succumbed to injuries. The parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal who after examined the entire evidence has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,83,793/ - along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Not being satisfied, the claimant -appellant has filed the present appeal. With this background, heard Sri Dev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 - Insurance Company. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the accident is not in dispute. The Car in question was insured by the National Insurance Company - opposite party no. 2. The only dispute is pertaining to the quantum of the award. The deceased was not working. So, the notional income of Rs.3000/ - per month was rightly taken by the Tribunal for the computation of the award, which comes to Rs.36000/ - per annum. The deceased was unmarried, so 50% is to be deducted. Thus, it comes to Rs.18000/ - per annum.
(3.) BY looking the age of the parents, the multiplier of 11 was rightly applied. Thus, the plea of the learned counsel that the multiplier was wrongly applied, is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reason that no age proof was given. The certificate pertaining to the date of birth was neither genuine nor attested. The same was manipulated as observed by the Tribunal. The deceased was unmarried. So, the average age of the parents was rightly taken by the Tribunal.;