- (1.) APPELLANT has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation against award dated 12.05.2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as 'The Tribunal') whereby 'The Tribunal' awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,04,244/ -.
(2.) FACTS relevant for the purpose of decision of present appeal are that on 12.11.2000 Raj Kumar (since deceased) was travelling in bus bearing registration No.HR -29 -PA -0119 of Haryana Roadways from Palwal, District Faridabad to Gurgaon. The said bus met with an accident with trailer bearing registration No.UP -78T -4211. The driver of the bus took the bus towards the extreme left side of the road. Raj Kumar took out his face and hand from the window of the bus and gave signal to driver of trailer to slow down the trailer but the driver of trailer struck the front side of the bus at the place where deceased Raj Kumar was sitting. Resultantly Raj Kumar suffered grevious injuries on various parts of the body and died on the spot. As per appellant, accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 who was driving the trailer bearing registration No.UP -78 -T -4211. Matter was reported to the police.
(3.) RESPONDENTS contested the claim petition. 'The Tribunal' awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,04,244/ - holding that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of appellant as well as respondent No.1 i.s. Drivier of trailer. At the time of arguments Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, learned counsel for appellants took the plea that 'The Tribunal' has fell in error while returning the findings that the accident was because of contributory negligence on the part of deceased himself. As per learned counsel for appellant, the bus was not in motion rather the same was parked. There was no bar for any passenger not to take his arm outside in a parked bus so it is not a case of contributory negligence. In fact the trailer had hit the bus and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. While arguing on the point of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant took the plea that 'The Tribunal' has not awarded 'Just Compensation' because Raj Kumar was of the age of 48 years and multiplier of 13 was to be applied as per law laid down Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 77 but the 'The Tribunal' applied multiplier of 11 only and adequate amount has not been awarded on account of love and affection for the family members on account of consortium, funeral expenses, future prospects of earning were to be added @ 30% at the age of appellant Raj Kumar. Appellant Raj Kumar was also getting pension @ Rs. 1900/ - but that was stopped. So the compensation amount be enhanced suitably.;