Mahesh Chandra Sharma. J. - (1.) SINCE the controversy involved in all these misc. appeals and cross -objection arise out of common judgment/award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. These misc. appeals have along -with cross objection have been filed by the against the Judgment/award dt. 28.7.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kishangarh (Ajmer (for short the learned Tribunal).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 15.10.1998 the deceased Mumtaj, injured Bundu and some other persons were travelling in the jeep No. RJ -0l/C -2999 and were going from Rupangarh to Kishangarh and its driver was driving the vehicle cautiously and slowly. At about 9:30 AM when they reached near Rawla hotel, the offending truck No. RPA -9495 came in a rash and negligent manner, came on its wrong side and hit their jeep resulting in the instant death of the deceased Mumtaj and injures to the injured Bundu. Fir was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. Evidence was submitted by both the parties. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. Facts of SBCMA No. 1556/2010:
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record in right perspective. The learned Tribunal has erred while considering the income of the deceased. The deceased was earning Rs. 4500/ - per month from his work and no rebuttal evidence was led by the opposite parties in this regard. Thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have been given compensation on proved and unrebutted income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the future prospects of the deceased who died in a young aged 25 years. It also erred in adopting the multiplier to 17 years whereas it should be 18 years as deceased was 25 years of age. It also erred in awarding lower rate of interest. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be enhanced.;