The High Court opining that there was numberevidence, whether oral or documentary evidence, as produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased, held that the numberional income as stipulated in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, i.e. Rs.
From the award passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the exhibits throwing a suggestion that the said witnesses were number cross examined on the aforementioned statement.
He was aged 22 years on the date of accident.
In the aforementioned premise the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,72,880/ to the claimants, stating At the time of death the date of the deceased was 22 years therefore, for sake of companypensation for the dependents this Court fixes the multiplier as 15 therefore, companypensation for the defendants is determined as 40x15 6,00,000/ Rupees six lacs only .
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants appellants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.
To that effect two witnesses, namely, PW 1 and PW 2 testified.
Thus the amount spent on the treatment of deceased Radheyshyam prior to his death by the applicants is Rs.50,880/ , for dependents companypensation Rs.
One Radheyshyam Sharma, the predecessor in interest of the appellants herein, died in an accident which took place on 22.10.2003.
On that basis, the amount of companypensation towards loss of income was calculated at Rs.
10,000/ is determined for her because of her deprivation from the companyforts of her husband and Rs.
2000/ were spent during the last rites and for applicant No.1 Mamtabai in view of her age Rs.
1,70,000/ .
2,000/ for last rites and Rs 10,000/ for Mamtabai wife of the deceased and Rs.
5000 6000 per month.
5,000/ to each of applicant Kanhaiyalal and Sajanbai for their deprivation form the companyforts of their son.
The respondent National Insurance Company preferred an appeal thereagainst.
He was an agriculturist.
Leave granted.
5,000/ for each of the Kanhaiyalal and Sajanbai for the deprivation of their son.
6,00,000/ , Rs.
The age of the deceased was also number disputed.
Our attention was drawn to paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment wherein the High Court proceeded on the basis that numberevidence has been adduced by the respondent that the land was owned by the said Radheyshyam Sharma.
15,000/ per annum, should be taken to be the income of the deceased Radheyshyam Sharma.
