The court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing the necessity of cogent evidence for claims regarding income and compensation adjustments.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 109/2012 (CIS No. 345/2014), titled as "Smt. Fatimunnisa & Ors. v. Bharat Kumar Joshi & Anr.", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants').

2. CMA No. 689/2020 has been filed by the New India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company') challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No. 428/2022 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. CMA No. 689/2020-Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimants had already filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sirohi, so the present claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly decided the issue Nos.1 and 2 against the insurance company. The Tribunal has also wrongly awarded Rs. 4,17,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, which is on higher side. So, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be set-aside/modified accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants in CMA No. 428/2022 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased-Babukhan as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was working as driver and earning Rs. 39,900/- per year i.e. Rs. 3,325/- per month. So, income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 3,325/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount towards love & affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas they should be enhanced. So, judgment of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6513/2007 decided on 23.11.2011.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

7. While deciding the issue Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence led by both the parties and rightly decided the same against the insurance company. The Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 100 per day(100X30= Rs. 3,000/- per month) because the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 39,900/- per year. In view of the second schedule appended with the MV Act, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount towards love & affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. So, in my considered opinion, the appeal filed by the insurance company as well as the appeal filed by the claimants both being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

8. Pending application(s) if any, also stand(s), dismissed.