JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The issues involved in this appeal are there was no negligence of driver of offending vehicle and income of deceased is considered on higher side.

2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that accident occurred due to burst of tyre of the offending vehicle, so there was no negligence of the driver of offending vehicle in the accident, it was an act of God. The driver of offending vehicle cannot be considered liable for it but Tribunal has not considered this fact. The learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on Minu B Mehta & Anr. vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. 1977 SCJ 118.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the salary of deceased is considered on higher side, it includes various bhattas which cannot be considered as part of salary. The learned counsel further submits that the consortium amount and amount under other heads is awarded on higher side. The tribunal has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondents/ Claimants that no witness was examined to prove the defense taken by the appellant. The tribunal has