Wangdi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, dated 24.09.2010 in M.A.C.T. Case No.46 of 2008 by the appellant on the sole ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient contrary to the evidence on the records.
(2.) IT is the case of the appellant that the Claims Tribunal committed error in taking Rs.1,500/- only as monthly income of the deceased, quite arbitrary and in conflict with the evidence adduced during the enquiry before it. The point for determination in the appeal being very short, with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal today. Heard.
(3.) MR. Ajay Rathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, placed the following evidence in support of his claim of the deceased earning Rs.3,000/- per month as his salary at the time of his death:- (a) Paragraph 6 of the claim petition which reads as: "6. Monthly income of : Monthly salary of the person dead/ Rs.3000/=(Net) Daily earning/ Rs.Three thousand income was:- only per month. (b) Paragraph 16 of the written objection filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, being the owner of the accident vehicle which reads as: "17. That with reference to paragraph 1 to 6 are matter of records". (c) Ext. 22 which is a salary certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle; (d) Paragraph 20 of the affidavit in evidence of the claimant no.3, who is the brother of the deceased which reads as: "20. That my deceased brother was working as labour cum handyboy of Respondent No.1 and he was drawing the salary to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rs.three thousand) only Exbt-22 is the original Salary Certificate issued by the Shri Gambir Singh Mangar (Respondent No.1) of Kadamtam Busty, East Sikkim". (e) The following portion of the cross-examination of the claimant by the Counsel on behalf of O.P.No.1:- "It is true that all the relevant documents of the ill-fated vehicle and the Driving License of deceased driver were valid and effective at the relevant time." (f) The following portion of the cross examination of the claimant no.3 by the Counsel on behalf of the O.P.No.2:- ".........It is not a fact that my deceased brother was not earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as his salary. ..............." By relying on the above evidence, Mr. Rathi submits that the claimant has been successful in proving that the deceased did earn Rs.3,000/- per month, as asserted by the claimants/appellants in their claim petition.;