JUDGMENT : 

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.

1. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 03.05.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani arising out of the same Award.

2. Claim petition No.56 of 2002 was instituted by Gobind Ram @ Goma Ram and another against Krishan Lal and others for grant of compensation on account of death of Ved Parkash which occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-16-GA-0295 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

3. Claim petition No.19 of 2003 was instituted by Rameshwar owner of jeep bearing No. HR-16A-0522 seeking compensation on account of damage suffered by his vehicle due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-16-GA-0295 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the accident resulting into death of Ved Parkash and damage to vehicle bearing No.HR-16A-0522 had occurred on 20.10.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-16-GA-0295 by Krishan Lal, respondent No.1?OPP

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP

(iii) Whether respondent No.1 Krishan Kumar was not having a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, if so, to what effect? OPR No.3.

(iv) Relief.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as compensation to the claimants (in MACT No.56 of 2002) on account of death of Ved Parkash and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the claimant (in MACT No.19 of 2003) on account of damage to his vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals, in hand, have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

8. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal bearing FAO No.4081 of 2005 and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court and the present appeals have to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

9. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 22/23 years of age and multiplier of 12 has been applied whereas multiplier of 18 should have been applied. No compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate and the compensation awarded for funeral expenses has also been assessed on the lower side and