J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 15/01/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Case No.155/2011 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was partly allowed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case noticed are that on 04/01/2011 at about 4.30-5.00 p.m. one Mohan Singh and Pappi were coming to Alwar from Rewari on Motor Cycle bearing No. RJ-02-10M-7619 and the brother of deceased, namely Narendra Singh and Rajesh were on another Motor Cycle, when they reached near Jajor Bas and Kithoor, a Jeep (Bolero) bearing No. RJ-32UA-1975 being driven on wrong side in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 Aasamdeen, hit the Motor Cycle of Mohan Singh, on account of which Mohan Singh died on the spot and Pappi sustained severe and grievous injuries. FIR No.10/11 was registered at the Police Station Sadar, Alwar and after investigation the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1-driver. Claim to the extent of Rs. 1,65,20,000/- was filed by the claimant-appellants. After analysing the material available on record and evidence led, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,90,000/- to the claimants, which is assailed herein.
(3.) Ld. counsel for the appellant limited his arguments to the effect that: (i) the deceased Mohan Singh was aged about 30 years, hail and hearty and had long life to live, he was running a sweet shop by the name of Ratan Misthan Bhandar and was earning an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month and was also income tax payer furnishing income tax returns which was placed on record by the claimants-appellants whereas the Tribunal, discarding everything, has taken into consideration the income of Rs. 60,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per month only which is meager; (ii) Admittedly, the deceased was running a sweet shop (restaurant) and had stable income, an income tax payer and therefore, was certainly entitled for future prospect. In so far as the future prospect, he elaborated and contended that there are several authorities on the proposition that even a driver, vegetable vendor, barber, self-employed persons or similarly situated person, are entitled for future prospects and relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors: (2012) 6 SCC 421 ; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways: (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) , G. Dhanasekar v. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.: I (2014) A.C.C. 593 (SC) ; Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company : (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) and also judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors. : (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. : 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 ; Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013 , judgment in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3690/2008), decided on 4th March, 2014 and further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & ors. v. Maharaj Singh & ors.: 2015 Law Suit (SC) 299 , which is a case of a technician in a hospital has allowed future prospect. He also relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others: 2015 (6) SCC 347 (three Judges), a case where the deceased was a Pandit where also claim was allowed and thus contended to allow future prospects, (iii) the amount allowed on other conventional heads is low and deserves to be enhanced suitably.;