J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants -claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 17.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6 (MACT), Jaipur City in claim case No. 197/2008, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim of the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,87,000/ - as total compensation to the claimant -appellants.
(2.) THE brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed by the wife, mother, father and two sons of deceased Mohammad Rafiq @ Bhuria before the Tribunal under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act alleging therein that on 30.10.2006 in the morning at about 9.15 a.m. deceased Mohammad Rafiq was going to his in -laws's house, when he was passing in front of Van Bihar Colony, Delhi Bye -pass road on his cycle then from the back side an Ambulance Maruti Van bearing No. R.J. 14 -1 P -3926, which was being driven by it's driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the cycle from back side on account of which he sustained injuries and as a result of that he died during the course of treatment. It was alleged that the said accident happened due to negligent driving by non -petitioner No. 1 and the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 23,15,000/ - as compensation. The non -petitioners Nos. 1 filed his reply to the claim petition whereby denying the averments made in the claim petition due to lack of knowledge and no accident was caused by his vehicle prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. No reply was filed on behalf of non -petitioner No. 2. The Insurance Company while alleging breach of conditions of insurance policy by the owner of the vehicle claimed that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. While taking the plea of lack of knowledge about the averments made in the claim petition prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties, framed as many as five issues including issue of relief. In oral evidence the claimants produced A.D. 1 Smt. Shaina Bano, A.D. 2 Abdul Sattar, A.D. 3 Mohammad Islam and A.D. 4 Mohammad Iqbal and submitted Ex. 1 to Ex. 7 in documentary evidence. In rebuttal the non -petitioners did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusing the documents and evidence available on record partly allowed the claim petition granting a sum of Rs. 3,87,000/ - as total compensation on all heads. Hence this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is towards lower side and the same being contrary to the facts available on record as well as legal principle, therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced by this Court. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in ignoring the un -controverted evidence with regard to income of deceased Mohammad Rafiq i.e. A.W. 1 Smt. Shaina Bano and Abdul Sattar, who clearly deposed that deceased Mohammad Rafiq was earning Rs. 9000/ - per month by polishing the gems and despite the aforesaid evidence remained unconroverted and unconfronted, but the Tribunal did not believe the same. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that there is no specific evidence regarding income of the deceased and assumed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2600/ - per month on basis of Minimum Wages Act. He contended that the deceased was a skilled labour, therefore, his income ought to have been at higher side. He contended that the learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 15 instead of 17 while calculating the compensation, whereas the learned Tribunal itself held the age of deceased as 35 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has failed in not allowing future prospects of the deceased. The counsel relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in : (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in : (2012) 6 SCC 421 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in : (2009) 6 SCC 121.;