- (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 20.10.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Case No. 318/2009.
(2.) The brief facts noticed are that Dhanraj, who is said to be driver on truck bearing no.RJ 20G 7786, took stones to Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) from Kota. However, a motor accident occurred on 30.1.2008 while deceased Dhanraj was riding motorcycle in Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) near Bhagwanpur pond with dumper bearing no.OR 09D 6368, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Satish Kumar Singh on wrong side of road, as a result of which Dhanraj suffered grievous and serious injuries and expired on account of the injuries. FIR No.25/2008 was registered at Police Station Kotra Road Distt. Raigarh (Chhatisgarh). Challan and charge-sheet was filed against Satish Kumar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. Claim petition was filed by the claimants. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence and material on record, allowed claim to the extent of Rs.2,43,100/-, which is assailed herein.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants at the outset raised following issues for consideration of this court : (i) the income of Rs.3,500 assessed by the Tribunal is meager particularly when the deceased had gone on duty driving the truck and he was having a valid driving license of heavy motor vehicle and, therefore, his income ought to have been taken at least Rs.8000/- per month. (ii) the multiplier has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal taking into consideration age of the parents, when the deceased being about 24 years of age, multiplier ought to have been adopted taking into consideration age of the deceased himself in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain & Others v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others, 2015 6 SCC 347. (iii) no amount by way of future prospects has been allowed, though the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, driver etc. are also entitled for future prospects. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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., 2014 1 ACC 593 (SC); and Syed Sadiq 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 1 ACC 37 (Raj.), 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, and judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014. (iv) the amount allowed towards loss of love and affection at Rs.2000/- each is virtually denying any amount as the parents as well as the sister of the deceased at a young age have suffered heavily on account of unfortunate death of their only young son and brother who was earning for the family, who would have helped them in later part of life, and accordingly prayed that the claim deserves to be enhanced on above issues.;