JUDGMENT :

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 11.08.2005, hence these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The appellant-Meetha Lal had brought Claim Case No. 164/1996 corresponding to Claim Case No. 207/2004 and appellant-Mahesh had brought Claim Case No. 163/1996 corresponding to Claim Case No. 208/2004. Both the claim petitions were decided by the impugned judgment and award dated 11.08.2005, which is under challenge in both these appeals. Hence, both these appeals were heard together.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.1996, both the appellants were going on a motorcycle to Niwai from Jaipur. As soon as they reached near Rampura, a Truck bearing Registration No. RRB-5736 rashly and negligently came and dashed against the motorcycle causing serious injuries to the appellants. For the accident aforesaid, FIR No. 33/1996 was registered with Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur. After investigation of the case, police submitted challan with finding that the driver of the offending truck was responsible for the accident.

4. It is worth to point out here that the driver of the truck confessed in criminal case vide his confessional statement at Ex.13 and statement in Court vide Ex.14 that due to his fault, accident took place.

5. The case of the claimants is that at the time of accident, appellant-Meetha Lal was aged about 20 years and appellant-Mahesh was aged about 24 years. Both were engaged in business of jewellery and were separately earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Both claimed Rs. 12,42,000/- as total compensation separately. At the time of accident, Meetha Lal was driving the motorcycle and Mahesh was a pillion rider. Appellant-Mahesh sustained fracture on right thigh bone and appellant-Meetha Lal sustained fracture of bones below knee.

6. Before the Tribunal, both the appellants were examined as AW-1 Mahesh and AW-2 Meetha Lal. Both have supported the factum of accident as eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they further deposed that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver. They have deposed about the pecuniary loss caused due to the accident.

7. The factum of accident and insurance of the vehicle is proved and established by the oral and documentary evidence on record vide copy of FIR, charge-sheet and certificate of policy of insurance.

8. Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for appellants contends that the claim of the appellants was not controverted nor their claim of monthly income was controverted, however, the learned Tribunal taking hyper-technical approach in absence of any documentary evidence of income, took income of a daily wager i.e. Rs. 72/- per day for choosing multiplicand. Learned counsel further contends that meager amount has been awarded under other heads which is not just and proper.

9. Though the respondents led no evidence before the Tribunal, however, learned counsel for respondents-Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary contends that the driver of the truck had no driving license as such there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence insurance company is not liable to pay. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the chances of contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider cannot be ruled out, hence the Tribunal should have apportioned certain amount for contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider.

10. The learned Tribunal while deciding the quantum of compensation took the income of a daily wager as multiplicand and multiplied it with 12 to get yearly loss of income and thereafter, multiplied with 16 for appellant-Meetha Lal and multiplier of 17 for appellant-Mahesh. The appellants were medically examined on 29.02.1996 i.e. the day following the accident and on the basis of X-Ray Report, the doctor of Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur found that the appellant-Meetha Lal has no bony in