R.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE appellant Insurance Company is challenging the award dated 9.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,96,000 to the claimant -respondents for the death of Bhagwan Meena.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 28.2.2004 Bhagwan Meena and others were travelling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ -20 -T -0940, from Kota to Bundi on National Highway. When they reached near Badgaon, a truck, bearing Registration No. PB -4B -9982, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the said jeep. Consequently, Bhagwan Meena and one smt. Jamila died on the spot and one Banshilal sustained injuries. Left without the bread earner, wanting some compensation for the sudden death, the respondentNos. 1 to 7 filed aclaim petition before the Tribunal. Since three different claim petitions were filed arising out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal by a common award was pleased to award the compensation as aforementioned. Since the appellant Insurance Company is aggrieved by the said award, it has filed the present appeal before us. Mr. J.K. Singhi, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions before us. Firstly, that the Tribunal has imposed a penal interest in case the compensation is not paid within the stipulated period. According to the learned Counsel, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act' for short), which empowers the Tribunal for imposing a penal interest. Secondly, since it was a head on collision between two vehicles, the contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles should have been presumed by the Tribunal. Such a presumption has not been drawn. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in imposing the liability solely on the Insurance Company of the truck. Thirdly, without any evidentiary basis, the income of the deceased has been decided by the Tribunal. The income decided by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, the computation of the compensation is misplaced.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, the learned Counsel for the claimant -respondents, has fairly conceded that there is no provision for imposition of the penal interest in the Act. However, he has contended that there is no legal presumption that in case of a head on collision, contributory negligence of the two vehicles should be presumed by the Tribunal. Although the respondent No. 1 had claimed in her testimony that her deceased husband was earning Rs. 10,000 per month, the Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs. 3,000 per month, considering the fact that he was a labourer. Therefore, the assessment of the income was not on the higher side. He has, thus, supported the impugned award.;