R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appeal is against the award dt. 22.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/ - to the appellants for the death of their son Dinesh Kumar.
(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 29.05.1995 the son of the appellants, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, was travelling with few other persons in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ -20/G -1541, for Ganga Snan to Soranji (U.P.). While jeep was crossing near Village Nagla Mevati on Bharatpur road, a tanker, bearing Registration No. RJ -20/G -1541, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Three persons including Mr. Dinesh Kumar expired in the said accident. Since the appellants were mother and father of the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a composite reply, the respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Company Ltd., filed a separate reply. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses and submitted six documents. On the other hand, the insurance company examined only a single witness to prove the insurance policy. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as stated above vide its award dt. 22.03.1997. Since the appellants are aggrieved by the said award, since they want the compensation amount to be enhanced, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount before this Court. Mr. Hamendra Goyal for Mr. L.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that at the time of his death, the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, was 15 years old according to the Postmortem Report. The father, the appellant No. 1, was 37 years old. Therefore, according to the Schedule - II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short), the multiplier of 16 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 12. The learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for applying the lesser multiplier than required by the law. Secondly, he has contended that since the deceased was a non -caring person, according to the Schedule - II of the Act, his income should be taken as Rs. 15,000/ - per month. Furthermore, without deducting 1/3 from the said amount, the said amount should be taken as a loss of dependency to the parents. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manu Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr., 2005 (1) ker. 609.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. G.K. Bhartia, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, has argued that income for a minor cannot notionally be taken to be Rs. 15,000/ - per annum as the uncertainty of the life precludes the learned Tribunal from assessing his notional income in any concrete terms. In order to buttres, his contention, he has relied upon the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Satender and Ors., 2007(1) T.A.C. 11 (SC).;