Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 30.01.2010 passed in (compensation) claim case No. 02 of 2004 passed by Additional Claim Tribunal, F.T.C. III, Chatra whereby and whereunder the respondent - The New India Assurance Company was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 4,32,000/ - (four lacs thirty two thousand only) to Appellants/claimant after deducting the interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - (fifty thousand only).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the claimant/appellants has submitted that the deceased was a married man of 27 years. He is survived by his widow/wife and three minor children. Considering the number of dependents, the tribunal should have deducted one -fourth of the income as the amount which the deceased would have spent on personal expenses. That the tribunal has deducted one -third as personal expenses which is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in [ : (2009), 6, SCC 121)]. It is argued that the court below while awarding the compensation has not considered the future prospects of the deceased who used to sell and make bamboo baskets. That the court below has failed to appreciate that 50% of the income should have been added as per the ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in [ : (2013), 9, SCC 54)]. It is urged that no amount has been awarded for loss of estate, loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents -Insurance Company has submitted that the cross objection has been filed by him wherein it has been asserted that said Jeep though was validly insured with the respondent but the said insurance policy had a coverage of only 12 passengers, whereas it is admitted as per Ext. 1 (F.I.R.) that the offending vehicle was carrying 35 to 40 passengers. From the facts and circumstances it would be evident that the deceased was not one of the 12 passengers entitled for coverage under the policy. As per recital in Ext. 1 it is manifestly clear that the deceased was pressed to the ground when the Jeep turned turtled, hence it can be inferred that he was a passenger travelling in the Jeep in excess of the 12 passengers. It is urged that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been violated, the Insurance Company has the right to recover the alleged compensation amount from the owner. It is urged that the learned Tribunal while observing that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner has not given the liberty to the Insurance Company for recovering the said amount from the owner.
(3.) IT is urged that the future prospects cannot be granted when there is no specific pleading to that effect. Moreover, the claimant has not led any evidence in the court below to sustain his plea of future prospects on the basis of a fixed income. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dubey v. Bidyadhar Dutta reported in [ : (2006), 1, TAC, 969)]. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, that from the application filed in the court it would be evident that the claimant has mentioned the income of deceased as Rs. 18,00/ - (one thousand eight hundred only) per month, by doing labour work and has claimed compensation amount of Rs. 3,10,000/ - (three lacs ten thousand only). In the statement of claimant there is no whisper regarding the future prospects of higher income/earning by the deceased.;