JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed on behalf of claimant-appellants for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment/award dated 13. 9. 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City,jaipur in MACT Cases Nos. 517/92 & 516/92.
(2.) BOTH the appeals are against the same judgment and both relate to the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Claim Petition No. 517/92 was filed by the parents of deceased Akaram and Claim Petition No. 516/92 was filed by injured Shabir before the Tribunal. In the claim petitions, it was pleaded that the deceased Akaram and injured Shabir were returning to their home on two-wheeler. They were coming slowly but their two-wheeler was hit by a Jeep belonging to non- applicant No. 2 Raghuveer Singh which was insured with the non- applicant No. 1 New India Assurance Company Ltd. , Nehru Place, Jaipur. The deceased Akaram died and injured Shabir became unconscious. The injured Shabir filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/- whereas parents of deceased Akaram filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,08,000/ -. The non-applicant No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. The non-applicant No. 1-company filed its written reply wherein usual objections were taken but it was not denied that vehicle was insured with it. One of the objections was that the injured did not give immediate information to the company about the incident and further that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are re-produced in the impugned judgment. The claimants examined Aslam Khan, Fareed and Mohammed Sazid as applicant witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of their claim. No witness was examined on behalf of the Assurance company. Learned Tribunal vide its judgment/award dated 13. 9. 1994 allowed both the claim petitions and passed an award of Rs. 65,000/- in favour of parents of deceased Akaram and or Rs. 10,000/- in favour of injured Shabir. The Tribunal held that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of non- applicant No. 2 driver. While discussing and deciding issue No. 2 relating to quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death of Akaram to his parent-claimants and Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony etc. Out of this total amount of Rs. 65,000/- Rs. 25,000/- was deducted which was paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. So far as compensation in favour of claimant Shabir is concerned, the Tribunal recorded finding that there were two simple injuries sustained by Shabir, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of two simple injures, Rs. 1200/- was awarded for loss of income and Rs. 1531/- was awarded on account of medical bills and about Rs. 2200-2300 were awarded for other expenses. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded in favour of injured Shabir.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record of the Tribunal including the statement of applicant witnesses and documentary evidence including injury report and operation-note of Shabir. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far deceased Akaram is concerned, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper, just and reasonable compensation for his death arising out of a motor vehicle. He further submits that even minimum wages was not taken into consideration which calculating the amount of compensation. He further submits that the applicant witness Naseeb Khan father of the deceased specifically stated before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000-2500 per month and he used to pay the entire amount to them as he was a bachelor. The another witness Fareed also stated that he was engaged in the business of Nageena and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the opposite party has neither cross-examined the applicant witnesses in respect of income of the deceased nor any evidence was produced on their behalf to rebut the evidence of applicant. The submission is that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of applicant's witnesses in respect of income of the deceased, as such, the compensation should be calculated as per evidence produced by the applicant-Shabir and the parents of the deceased. He also referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in RLW 1999 (1) SC 90 (Shanti Bai and Others vs. Charan Singh and Others) wherein in the similar circumstances and where age of deceased was 18 years, awarded a compensation of Rs. 150,000/ -. In the said case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- only as compensation which was enhanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was ordered to be paid along with interest from the date of the judgment. He submits that the accident was relating to the year of 1991 itself in the above judgment namely Shanti Bai and Others vs. Charan Singh and Others (supra), whereas present case also relates to an accident which took place in the year 1992, therefore, on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- may be awarded as compensation along with interest. Learned counsel for the respondent-company has defended the judgment of the Tribunal and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. ;