The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation based on the deceased's income and dependency, and the court's affirmation of the assessment despite challenges to the income tax return.

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. This order will dispose of F. A. O. No.2710 of 1999 titled as Ginni V/s. Union of India, F. A. O. No.2711 of 1999 titled as Sunita Gupta V/s. Union of India, F. A. O. No.537 of 1999 titled as Union of India V/s. Ginni and F. A. O. No.538 of 1999 titled as Union of India v. Sunita Gupta, arising out of the award dated 11.11.1998 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short the Tribunal ). For facility of reference facts have been taken from F. A. O. No.2710 of 1999.

2. This is an appeal filed by claimants challenging the award dated 11.11.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal in M. A. C. T. Case No.115 dated 17.5.97 filed by Ginni devi, the widow of Jitender Kumar Gupta claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for the injuries suffered by her. In the m. A. C. T. Case No.118 dated 17.5.1997 filed by Ginni Devi, Babu Ram and Vimal kumar, compensation of Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakh) on account of death of Jitender Gupta was claimed.

3. Facts of the case are that on 5.4.1997 the deceased Sunil Kumar along with his father Jitender Kumar Gupta deceased, her mother Ginni Devi and one Bohti Devi, petitioners in M. A. C. T. Case Nos.115 and 116 dated 17.5.1997 were proceeding from jind to Chandigarh in Maruti car bearing no. CH 01-C 0306. The said car was being driven by Sunil Kumar deceased. At about 8/8.30 p. m. when this car reached near village Balana, District Ambala, a military truck bearing No.76 D-2248q L was found parked on the metalled portion of the road without any indication of its parking by the driver. In view of the light of the incoming vehicle, his eyes were dazzled and accordingly sunil Kumar diverted his car towards extreme left, where he could not see the parked truck and resultantly the car hit the rear portion of the truck. It was claimed that the visibility was very poor at that time due to darkness and that the indicator of the said truck was also not on. It was further claimed that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the military truck driver. It was also claimed that due to said impact Sunil Kumar and Jitender kumar Gupta died on the spot while Ginni devi and Bohti Devi received injuries on their person. It was also claimed that the car was being driven at a normal and moderate speed.

4. Ginni Devi in her claim application claimed her age to be 52/53 years, She was firstly taken to General Hospital, Ambala and later on brought to Chandigarh where she was treated by a private doctor. In the accident, she lost her right eye. She claimed to have spent Rs.30,000 on her treatment for the injuries suffered by her and thus, she claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000 (rupees five lakh) as compensation. The said claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

5. In claim petition bearing M. A. C. T. Case No.116 of 17.5.1997 filed by Bohti devi, she claimed herself to be 44 years. She asserted that she had spent a sum of rs.20,000 on account of her treatment for the grievous and multiple injuries on her person and a compensation to the tune of rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lakh only) was claimed. The said claim petition was also dismissed.

6. In the claim petition by Ginni Devi, babu Ram and Vimal Kumar legal heirs of Jitender Kumar Gupta, a compensation of Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lakh) was claimed by asserting that the late Jitender kumar Gupta was aged about 55 years at the time of his death and was said to be earning Rs.20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) per month by doing business.

7. In claim petition M. A. C. T. Case No.117 filed by Sunita Gupta, Rohit Gupta and ginni Devi, i. e. , widow, minor sons and mother of deceased Sunil Kumar, a compensation of Rs.25,00,000 (rupees twenty-five lakh) was claimed. Sunil Kumar, who was claimed to be 34 years of age, was said to be earning Rs.20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) per month.

8. All the claim petitions were contested by the respondents by filing a joint written statement in which it was claimed that the vehicle