- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. The unfortunate parents of de ceased Chirag Jain are the appellants in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/addl. District Judge/vth ETC. , Dehradun vide Award dated 30-01-2004 passed in M. A. C. T. Case No. 248 of 2001.
(2.) THE claimants claimed compen sation of Rs. 18,00,000/- for the death of their son Chirag Jain in the motor ac cident on 29-06-2001 when the motor cycle bearing registration No. UP08-K-7789, on which he was travelling as a pillion-rider, was dashed by the offend ing vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registra tion No. UP0/-L-9614 resulting in seri ous injuries to motorcyclist Aman Sethi and pillion-rider Chirag Jain resulting in the death of both of them later in the hospital. THE claimants pleaded that their son Chirag Jain used to earn Rs. 6,500/-per month by running a Canteen in Doon School, Dehradun. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo contested the claim and denied their liabil ity to pay compensation on the ground that the motorcyclist, himself, was neg ligent and as such, was responsible for the accident. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle, on the other hand, at tributed negligence resulting in the acci dent to the driver of the offending vehi cle Tata Sumo. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that the claimants' son Chirag Jain sustained injuries in the motor accident on 29-06-2001 and suc cumbed to those injuries on 03-07-2001 in the hospital; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo; and the insurer of Tata Sumo was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
(3.) AS the Tribunal did not find the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased reliable, his in come was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional in come prescribed in the Second Sched ule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting l/3rd of the said amount as personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs: 10,000/- per annum. Considering that the claimants were parents of the deceased and were aged about 51 years and 56 years respectively, the Tribunal selected the multiplier of '10'. By multiplying the annual depend ency of Rs. 10,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The Tribunal awarded further sum of Rs. 25,000/- under other heads. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded as compensa tion to the claimants for the death of their son Chirag Jain in the motor acci dent. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in assess ing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income; in selecting the lower multiplier of'10' only though the de ceased was 21 years of age on the date of the accident; and in not awarding any amount towards Medical Expenses incurred by the claimants on the treat ment of their son Chirag Jain.;