Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Serve Singh assisted by Sri Harish Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dinkar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the U.P.S.T.C..
(2.) This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 04.09.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Gorakpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 03 of 2002.
(3.) The grounds raised in the memo of appeal for claiming higher compensation are as enumerated in para 4, 5, 6,7 which read as follows:- "(4). The deceased was business man and has been earning more than 150 per day and was only aged about 35 years, being survived by 2 minor sons, 1 minor daughter, 1 wife, mother and one brother and all are the dependent of the deceased, and there is much loss to the deceased family, after the death of deceased, and the learned Tribunal has ignored this aspect of the matter, while making the award. (5). The appellants have fully established their case for multiplying the claim according to the earning of the deceased, and of his age, but the learned Tribunal illegally and erroneous did not multiplier the claim of the appellants, hence award is wholly wrong liable be to interfered by the Hon'ble Court. (6). Only on the grounds of being handicap a various liabilities should not be sifted, as has been done in the impugned award, by the learned Tribunal, hence the impugned award is wholly illegal, erroneous and liable to be interfered by the Hon'ble Court. (7). The learned Tribunal erroneously and manifestly mis-interpretated the evidence made by the appellants, and recorded of perverse findings of no fault case. Hence the impugned order is wholly illegal, erroneous, and illegal." The learned Advocate for the appellants has cited the following judgments in the case of Smt. Gulshan Jahan and Others Vs. Om Prakash and Another, 2011 2 ADJ 12 (DB)] decided on 7th January, 2011, Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors,2001 1 SCC 5 decided on 03.01.2001 and has contended that the finding of the Commissioner of the Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal is bad and has contended that the Tribunal has granted a paltry sum of Rs.55,000/- for the death of person aged 35 and was having his own business of stationary he was survived by six persons and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. It has further contended that the finding of fact that as the deceased was handicapped and was unable to cross the road it was an act of God and he was person responsible for the accident having taken place. Though the Tribunal believed that the bus was involved in the accident belonging to U.P.S.R.T.C. it granted only Rs.55,000/- as compensation.;