JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the award dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,30,000/- was assessed in favour of the appellants/claimants. However, on account of contributory negligence attributed to the deceased, the said amount was reduced to Rs. 4,98,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization, in respect of the death of Zile Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 01.11.2007.

FACTS

[2] The appellants/claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased-Zile Singh filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of death of Zile Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver.

[2.1] After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 08.05.2009, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 as well as contributory negligence on the part of deceased to the extent of 40%.

[2.2] Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 08.05.2009; the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for setting aside the findings regarding contributory negligence as well as for enhancement of compensation. A detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

[3] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in reducing the entitlement of the appellants/claimants to the extent of 40% by holding deceased contributorily negligent to the said extent, without there being any cogent evidence on record to substantiate such a finding. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at a meager sum of Rs.6,000/- despite uncontroverted evidence indicating earnings of Rs.15,000/- per month; besides having applied an incorrect multiplier of 16 instead of 18, considering the age of deceased who was 37 years at the time of death; therefore, he prayed that the finding of contributory negligence be set aside and the amount of compensation be enhanced as per latest decisions on the subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 3

[4] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3, driver and superdar of the offending vehicle respectively, contended that the accident did not occur on account of any rash or negligent driving on the part of driver, as he was driving the vehicle in a careful and lawful manner, observing all traffic rules. He further submitted that the appellant was adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.4/INSURANCE COMPANY

[5] Per contra, learned counsel representing No.4/Insurance Company submitted that there was no basis to assess the income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/- per month as no documentary evidence were available before the learned Tribunal in support. He thus submitted that the learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly assessed the income of deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants were rightly compensated and, thus the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

[7] In the present case, perusal of the record indicates that deceased-Zile Singh, at the time of accident