9,600/ per month.
The accident took place on 7.5.1997.
An application under Section 166 of the Act claiming companypensation for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was filed by the appellants in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur .
4,667/ per month.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 990 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
A written statement was filed by the Insurance Company in the said proceedings.
He is said to have been deriving income both as an agriculturist as also from his business as companymission agent in the business of companyonut.
4,000/ per month, from his agricultural operation and Rs.
The Income Tax Returns Exp.
The Tribunal, inter alia, keeping in view the fact that the Income Tax Returns were filed only after the death of the said Vadivellu, estimated at Rs.
Appellant is, thus, before us.
The purported receipts granted by the tenant were also unstamped.
Before the Tribunal, the appellants produced some documents to show that the income of the deceased was about 12,500/ per month.
7,000/ per month and upon deducting 1/3rd thereof from the amount towards his personal expenses, the High Court held that his companytribution to his family would companye to about of Rs.
3,000/ from his companymission business, totalling a sum of Rs.
The same was adopted by the owner of the vehicle.
It was an unregistered document.
Despite service of numberice, the first respondent has number appeared.
Income tax returns were filed on 23.6.1997.
So far as the question in regard to the quantum of companypensation awarded in favour of the appellants is companycerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has taken into companysideration all the relevant evidences brought on record.
19532 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The High Court has only entertained the appeal of the owner.
The High Court, however, estimated the income of the deceased to be around a sum of Rs.
Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income was assessed at Rs.
13,82,400/ as was found by the Tribunal.
Allegedly, owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, an accident took place wherein one Vadivelu, the predecessor in interest of the appellants died.
10,08,072/ , instead and in place of Rs.
First respondent is the owner of a bus.
