- (1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, namely award dated 16-3-2007 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City Jaipur ('the learned Tribunal' for short), whereby for the death of Labh Chand Jayaswal the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- to claimants, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. While the first appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, the second has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 8-3-2004 Labh Chand was going on his scooter, bearing No. RJ-14-24M-9700, towards his house. He was followed by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. RJ-14-1P-2803. While both the vehicles were going on the correct side of the road, near Nagtali Poolia a truck, bearing registration No. HR-47-3925, being driven in rash and negligent manner hit the auto-rickshaw and then hit the scooter. Consequently, Labh Chand died on the spot. Since the claimants, which included his parents, his brothers and his two sisters, were totally dependant on Labh Chand, they filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove their case, they examined five witnesses and exhibited twenty documents. The Insurance company neither examined any witness, nor exhibited any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted the compensation as aforementioned.
(3.) Ms. Archana Mantri, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has raised two contentions before this Court: firstly that since there is no documentary proof that Labh Chand was earning Rs. 4500/- per month, his income as assessed by the learned Tribunal, is on the higher side. In the absence of documentary proof, the learned Tribunal should have assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time. At the relevant time Labh Chand would have been entitled only to Rs. 81/- per day. Hence, the basis for calculating the loss of income is misplaced. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to show that sisters of deceased, respondents No. 6 and 7, were dependant upon him. Therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation.;