ORDER :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), against the judgment and award dated 16.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.920/2005, praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2004 at about 9 P.M. Shyam Babu, Vishnu Kumar and Manoj Kumar were standing on Kota-Jaipur National Highway near a petrol pump. At that time, the offending vehicle, a truck bearing no. RJ-14-1G-5764, came from Kota side in high speed. The driver of the truck was driving the truck negligently. The abovementioned persons who were standing on the road, tried to save themselves but since the truck was in high speed it ran them over. In the incident Vishnu Kumar died on the spot and Manoj sustained some injuries. On this, FIR No.75/2004 was registered and after investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338, 304A IPC and 134/187 of the Act of 1988 was presented in the Court against Geeta Ram who was the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Dependent of the deceased filed the claim petition bearing no.920/2005 for claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. In that claim petition, driver and owner of the offending vehicle were also made non-applicants. They did not file any reply to the claim petition and only Insurance Company contested the matter. The Tribunal decided the claim petition vide impugned order dated 16.01.2006. The total amount of Rs.62,250/- as compensation was awarded to the appellants, against which this appeal for enhancement of the compensation has been preferred.

4. The learned Tribunal in its judgment, was of the opinion that the deceased was also negligent in this case because he was standing on the National Highway at 9 P.M. Adopting this line of reasoning, the contributory negligence of the deceased was assessed to be 25% by the learned Tribunal. Since the deceased was a bachelor of about 28 years, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8, on the basis of average age of the parents of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the contributory negligence of the deceased because the deceased was not at all negligent vis-a-vis the incident. It has also been contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in quantifying the income of the deceased. It is contended that, assessing the notional annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, based on second schedule of the Act of 1988 is erroneous. It has been averred that the deceased was a Pandit and was earning money by performing religious rituals. He is also said to have been working in a Tent House. It has been submitted by the appellants that, the income of the deceased should have been considered to be Rs.10,000/- P.M. The appellants pray that the appeal be allowed and compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

1. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.: 2017(16) SCC 680.

2. Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. v. M/s I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Lt.: Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21077 of 2019), dated 10.08.2022.

3. Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.8179 of 2022 (Arising out of Speci