Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) The above noted two appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the same impugned award dated 06.09.1994, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short 'the Tribunal'),
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No.526 of 1995, contends that the learned Tribunal has held the liability to the extent of 70% on account of negligence of the driver of the tractor trolly and 30% negligence of the scooter driver. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He was a graduate and running a Kariana shop. The matric Certificate Ex.PW6/A and graduation certificate Ex.PW6/B has already been taken on record. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal assessed his salary at Rs. 9,00/- per month, which is on the lower side. As per the notification issued by Haryana Government, minimum wages for skilled worker are fixed as Rs. 3,000/- per month for the year 1991. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 which should be 18 as per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 . The learned counsel lastly argued that no compensation has been awarded under the heads of future prospects, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, love and affection and loss of love, care and guidance to the children.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No.527 of 1995 contends that the appellant was 31 years of age at the time of injuries. He suffered multiple serious injuries and his right leg was amputated up to the knee. He remained admitted in General Hosptial, Kaithal for treatment. He further submits that due to the accident, he was rendered ineligible for all disciplinary services and the marriage prospects were also curtailed. Therefore, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life is inadequate.;