Pankaj Bhatia, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 28.8.2004 passed in MACP No.259 of 2003 and the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Etah, in Misc. Case No.32 of 2005.
(2.) Brief facts, which have led to the filing of the present petition, are as under:- That on 24.5.2003 one Vimal Kumar Sharma (son of the claimant) respondent no.2 was going on a motorcycle along with his friend Anil Kumar Gupta on motorcycle No.U.P. 82-D-8847 from Basundhara to Etah. The motorcycle was being driven by Anil Kumar Gupta, on the road a Bus No.U.P. 80-Q-9071 of the UPSRTC, the petitioner herein was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven rashly and negligently and caused an accident with the motorcycle. The driver of the motorcycle Anil Kumar Gupta sustained injuries however, unfortunately Vimal Kumar Sharma died on the spot on account of the said accident. A first information report with regard to the said accident was also lodged by the respondent no.2. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed before the MACT/Special Judge, SC/ST Act which was registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No.259 of 2003, Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and others. In the said claim petition, it was stated that Vimal Kumar Sharma at the time of the accident was aged about 22 years and was engaged in a business of teaching the students and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He used to teach the students of class X and XII. It was stated that the father and mother of Vimal Kumar Sharma, the claimants in MACP No.259 of 2003 were dependant on Vimal Kumar Sharma. Ramesh Chandra Sharma the father of Vimal Kumar Sharma was aged about 55 years and claimant no.2 Smt. Ram Devi, the mother of Vimal Kumar Shrama was aged about 48 years at the time of filing of the claim petition. The claim petitioners had claimed an amount of Rs. ten lakh as compensation on account of death of their only son Vimal Kumar Sharma. In the said claim petition, Anil Kumar Gupta, the driver of motorcycle No. U.P.82-D-8847, had put in appearance and filed his written statement stating that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus No. U.P.80-Q-9071. The Insurance Company through which the motorcycle was insured also put in appearance and stated that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the Bus, however, the motorcycle was duly insured with the insurance company and the driver of the motorcycle had a valid driving license at the time of accident.
(3.) In the said claim petition, summons were served on the petitioners herein however, they did not appear despite service of summons through registered post and as such vide an order dated 16.7.2004 orders were passed for proceeding ex-parte against the petitioners herein. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal heard the matter and framed four issues for adjudication on merit. The issue no.1 pertaining to the negligence for the accident was decided against the Bus and it was held that the accident occurred on account of negligence and rash driving of the Bus. Issue no.4 relating to the quantum of compensation and the liability for payment of the compensation was decided by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record. The Tribunal relied upon the oral evidence of the claimants who gave evidence to the effect that at the time of the death, Vimal Kumar Sharma was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and on that basis held that the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal further held that at the time of accident, the deceased would be spending 1/3rd of the said amount on himself, however it, ascertained the dependency at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal proceeded to apply multiplier of 12 and thus, calculated the compensation payable as under:- Rs.3,000.00 X 12 X 12 = 4,32,000.00.;