Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the Judgment/Award dated 08.05.2012, passed by 5th District Judge -cum -Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claims Case No. 100/2003. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation on the ground that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, has been made one third instead of one fourth. The other employees of the garage have given statement that they have been receiving salary to the extent of Rs. 3,500/ - per month whereas the claimants have made assertion that the deceased was receiving Rs. 5,200/ - per month. The Tribunal has considered monthly salary of the deceased only Rs. 2,500/ - which is less than notional income of Rs. 3,000/ - per month. Interest on the awarded amount has not been made from the date of filing of the claim. It is apparent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and that needs modification. The next point raised by the appellant is that no amount towards loss of guardian to the children has been directed to be paid by the Tribunal though Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent Judgment has considered the issue.
(2.) On the other hand counsel appearing for the respondents/United India Insurance Company has opposed the arguments and submitted that the Tribunal has chosen multiplier 18 instead of 17. Admittedly no conclusive proof regarding monthly salary of the deceased has been brought on record. The compensation awarded appears just and reasonable.
(3.) I have gone through the impugned Judgment and Award. It is not disputed that the occurrence took place when the deceased was indulged in repairing one vehicle. In the mean time another vehicle caused dash, as a result the deceased sustained injury and died. It can well be imagined that the deceased was skilled mechanic.;