- (1.) THE First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 6-8-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in C. P. No. 515 of 1999.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present ap peal are that on 30-9-1999, at about 1. 30 a. m. , when the husband of respondent No. 1 was going to Kanpur along with Ravi Wahaal in the Santro car of the latter bearing No. UP-32 AA 1188, the car met with an accident near Village Ashakheda, Police Station Sohramau, caused by truck No. UP92 B 0141, which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven rashly and negligently. On ac count of the accident, the husband of the re spondent No. 1 received grievous injuries and he died on the spot. THE husband of the re spondent No. 1 expired on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. On these allegations, a claim petition was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation. THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceeded to decide the claim and passed an award of Rs. 10, 89, 500/ -. Feel ing aggrieved with the said order, the appel lant has filed this appeal. The submission of the learned counsel 'for the appellant is that the income of the de ceased has been wrongly assessed and on that basis excessive award has been made. He also submitted that looking to the age of the de ceased multiplier of 18 applied in the present case could not have been applied. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is no illegality in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was having an inde pendent business and in support of the claim, the turn over of the firm owned by the de ceased was filed before the Tribunal, which showed the income of the deceased as Rs. 83, 261/- as against six months. Therefore, the multiplier as contemplated under the second schedule has rightly been applied and the award of the Tribunal is liable to be main tained.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of death and, therefore, the multiplier of 18 as con templated under second schedule was applied. So far the argument in regard to income of the deceased is concerned, the turn over for the year 1998-99 for six months was filed but if the said turn over is not taken into consid eration, then also the PW-1, wife of the de ceased, has stated in her statement that her husband used to give Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/-per month to her for expenses. This goes to iadicate that, apart from personal expenses, the amount of Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month was being given by the deceased. If the income of the deceased on this basis is calculated, then it comes to Rs. 72, 000/- per year, after excluding the personal expenses whereas the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 60, 000/- per year, after exclud ing the personal expenses. So, in our opin ion, no illegality has been committed while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 60, 000/- per year.;