Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore, vide which, appellants are held jointly and severally liable. While praying for setting aside the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle and the entire liability of making payment of compensation saddled upon the appellants. The deceased should have been held responsible for contributory negligence. It was head -on collusion and the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible. Secondly, the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.3300/ - was wrongly assessed. The salary certificate has not been proved. As such, the tribunal should have proceeded to compute compensation on the basis of minimum of the pay scale.
(2.) HEARD . The appellant herein is the owner and the driver. The first argument that the deceased himself was negligent has no basis. As per the site plan Ex. 6, as also the statement of AW 1 and from the challan Ex.1, it is evident that the tractor left his side and came on the wrong side and thus, hit the motor cycle coming from the opposite side on the correct side. As a result, Vinod Kumar, who was riding the motor cycle, died on the spot.
(3.) THE second argument with respect to the salary, also cannot be sustained. The deceased was 25 years of age. A.W.1 father of the deceased deposed that the income of the deceased was Rs.5500/ -. The said witness also placed on record Ex.P 1 which pertains to appointment of the deceased Vinod Kumar in Tasmend (India). The draft salary has been placed on record as Ex. P 2. After deducting all the allowances, the salary was assessed at Rs.3300/ -. The said amount cannot be said to be on the higher side. It only comes to Rs.100/ - per day which is assessed on the lower side.;