Judgment :

Puneet Gupta, J.-The judgment shall dispose of above captioned two appeals which arise out of common award dated 01.02.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in two separate claim petitions. The two separate claim petitions filed before the Tribunal arise out of accident allegedly caused on 30.03.2010 on Srinagar- Jammu National Highway at Galandar, Pampore due to rash and negligent driving by Mohd. Maqbool of a tipper bearing registration No. JK03A-0108 The said vehicle-Tipper hit Vehicle-Tata Sumo-which resulted into death of Showkat Ali, passenger in the said vehicle, and Irshad Ahmad Khan who was driving the Tata Sumo vehicle. The two claim petitions filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons resulted into passing of awards by common judgment. It is suffice to mention here that the appellant has not challenged the accident which took place allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper and thus this court in appeal is not required to detain itself in detail in dealing with the alleged accident in question and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimants, if any, in both the claim petitions. The compensation awarded passed by the Tribunal was ‘just’ in the facts of the case is the question which requires determination in the appeal.

2. The appellant has challenged the award on the grounds: that the deceased persons had no fixed income and the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, the prospective earning recorded of the deceased and the deduction made by the Tribunal qua the earning of the deceased are not as per law. The court deals with both the awards given by the Tribunal separately in the present appeal.

CMAM No.66/2017 in Claim Petition No.132/2010:

3. The Tribunal in Claim Petition No.132/2010 awarded Rs.32,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal held the deceased to be hawker at the time of accident and assessed his monthly income at the time of his death as Rs.15000/- and added 50% of the income as future one of the deceased who was bachelor while calculating the compensation. The Tribunal also deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal and living expenses as it held that the claimants who are the parents, three sisters and one brother were being maintained by the victim at the time of the accident. The Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 18 as the age of the victim was 24 at the time of death and calculating amount under other heads awarded Rs.32,40,000/- in favour of the claimants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the victim as well as adding 50% as the future income and also deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, while awarding compensation to the claimants. The precise submission is that as the deceased was not having fixed income, therefore, the addition of 50% as prospective income of the deceased was not as per law. Secondly, the deduction to the extent of 1/3rd is also not permissible as the brothers and sisters could not be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has, however, rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as he has submitted that the appellant had no case to file the appeal against the claimants. The calculation made by the Tribunal on the above count is perfectly valid in law and does not require any modification in the appeal.

6. So far as the earning of the deceased at the time of his death is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the victim was dealing in shawls, suits and blankets etc. and the bills/vouchers have been placed on record with regard to the purchase of the items from different agencies. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. The court does not find any reason not t