AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount of Rs. 2,79,000/-, in Claim Case No. 163 of 2002, passed by the District Judge-V cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that the deceased Munshi Yadav @ Munshi Rajak was working as a Driver in Lorry No. AAK-9550 and certificate to that effect had been granted by the employer. That in the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that he was an Operator of the Pokelane. It is submitted that the court below should have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the salary certificate granted by the employer. It should have appreciated the fact that the deceased had gone out of State to earn his livelihood, hence the assessment of the monthly income at Rs. 2000/- per month is not just and proper. In fact, the court should have assessed the income at Rs. 5000/-. It is submitted that the deceased is survived by six dependents and the court below has committed an error in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses instead of ?th. That meager amount of Rs. 7000/- has been granted as funeral expenses and loss of consortium and no amount has been granted towards the loss of estate and loss of love and affection. On the above ground, it is prayed that the compensation amount should be enhanced by assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month.
(3.) Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has submitted that the court below has discussed the evidence of the witnesses and held that the driving licence has not been produced to substantiate the plea that the deceased was employed as a driver. It is submitted that the brother of the petitioner was examined as C.W. - 3 and in his cross examination he has feigned ignorance as to who was the driver of the lorry. That the salary certificate granted by the employer has not been proved in accordance with law neither the employer has been examined to establish the plea of the respondents regarding the income of the deceased. The court below has rightly disbelieved the claim of the petitioners regarding the employment of the deceased as a driver of the lorry. That even in the charge-sheet, it has been specifically mentioned that he was an operator but in the F.I.R., lodged by the coworker, there is no mention that the deceased was employed as lorry driver. It is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased. ;