G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the award dated 26.10.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 55/1994 by which an award of L 92,000/- has been passed.
(2.) Brief facts of the mishap are that while Navin Kumar a child of about 16 years was standing behind the truck after deboarding, its driver Kalu Lal reversed the truck without looking behind resultantly Navin Kumar was run over by the truck and died. The learned Tribunal awarded L 92,000/- by awarding L 80,000/-towards pecuniary loss, L 10,000/- towards mental agony and rest of L 2,000/-towards funeral expenses. The main contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding and assessing income of the deceased boy Navin Kumar notionally. Learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon the following judgments :- (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh and Ors., 2004 R.A.R. 17 (SC); (ii) Fahim Ahmad and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2014 R.A.R. 83 (SC); (iii) Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and Ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 289, has contended that the Tribunal has passed erroneous award by not granting notional income and has only granted compensation in sum of L 92,000/- on the basis of conjectures, which is inappropriate since the deceased boy was a student of 9th Class and was about 16 years of age, rate of interest has also been wrongly given at 8%, which must have been granted at the rate of 15%. The vehicle was being driven by a valid driving license-holder and the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated from paying the award amount and award amount must have been saddled upon the Insurance Company. Hence, the award needs to be increased by applying notional income of the deceased child Navin Kumar. Per contra, Counsel representing the respondent Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned award does not suffer from any wrong. The Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the award amount and finding to this effect does not require any interference, the award passed is also correct with respect to quantum as well.
(3.) I have been heard learned Counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned award and material available on record.;