JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 31. 8. 1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MACT case No. 436/91 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- in favour of the claimants- appellants. The claimant- Smt. Prem Devi and Gulab Devi, the wife and mother of the deceased, filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal in respect of death of Chetan Mali in motor accident which took place on 10th February 1991. The Tribunal, in absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased, awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation in favour of the mother and the wife of the deceased. Rs. 15,000/- was further awarded for loss of consortium etc. Thus the total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- was awarded in favour of the mother and wife of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was a driver and the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not accepting the income of Rs. 10,000/- per month of the deceased as stated by mother of the deceased. He submits that it was a duty of the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of oral statement of his mother. Therefore, the amount of compensation ought to have been calculated assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month and his age as 23 years at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of the applicant in detail and thereafter awarded a just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants, therefore, this is not a fit for interference in the impugned award by this Court. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the finding of the learned Tribunal in the light of the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal while discussing issue No. 3 has discussed the statements of mother and wife of the deceased about age and income. After considering the statement of the applicants witnesses the learned Tribunal has observed that no documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased has been produced on record so as to come to a conclusion about exact income of the deceased. So far as oral statements of Prem Devi and Gulab Devi are concerned, the same were found to be contradictory to each other and without any reference of the same in the application for compensation. However, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal thought it proper to award a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in the present case and further Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium etc. thus awarded Rs. 1,65,000/ -. THE Tribunal also awarded interest @ 12% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that there is no documentary evidence available on record in respect of income of the deceased. This is a case relating to the year 1991 and the learned Tribunal was right in not relying upon the statement of mother and wife of the deceased that income of the deceased driver was Rs. 10,000/- per month in 1991. The oral statements were contrary to each other and also contrary to facts mentioned in the application for compensation. The Tribunal was right in awarding a total compensation as Rs. 1,50,000/ -. ;