- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.09.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the death of Vijay Ram Devasi, a sum of Rs.93,000.00 has been awarded to the claimants, who are mother and father of deceased Vijay Ram Devasi.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants, inter alia, with the averments that on 26.08.1995 at around 6:00 PM Vijay Ram Devasi was driving a Mini City Bus bearing No.RJ19-P-0144 from Jodhpur to Pipar. At around 7:00 PM one truck bearing No.RSL-2785, which was filled with lime stone came from front and struck the said vehicle, which resulted in death of said Vijay Ram Devasi. It was claimed that deceased was unmarried and aged 24 years and was employed with Madan Lal and earning Rs.2,500.00 per month and was getting Rs.50.00 as daily allowance. A sum of Rs.21,00,000.00 was claimed as compensation. While the owner and driver of the vehicle did not file any written statement, the Insurance Company filed its written statement and disputed its liability. The Tribunal framed as many as four issues and on behalf of the claimants three witnesses were examined and no one was examined on behalf of the respondents. While deciding the issues, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Truck No.RSL 2785 was being driven rashly and negligently and held that claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.93,000.00 as compensation. For arriving at the said compensation, the Tribunal in view of the fact that employer was not produced, took the dependency at Rs.800-900.00 and after using a multiplier of 8 has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000.00. Further a sum of Rs.2,000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,000.00 towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000.00 towards suffering and Rs.4,000.00 each for loss of love and affection has been awarded.
(3.) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that looking to the age of the deceased the amount awarded is quite meager. Specific oral evidence by way of AW-2 Firoz Khan was produced to prove the salary of the deceased, future prospects have not been taken into consideration and amount of deduction is also on the higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that the awarded amount does not call for any interference, inasmuch as, no evidence of the owner/employer of the vehicle has been led to prove the salary of the deceased. Further, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported at 2009 (6) SCC 121 it was stated that claimants are not entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects.;