JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Faizal Hasmi holding brief of Shri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the respondents Insurance Company.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2010 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in C.P. No.188/2008, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of application till date of actual payment of the awarded amount.

3. While assailing the said award for enhancement, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in failing to notice that the deceased was merely 22 years of age. However, while adopting the multiplier, the age of the parents has been considered which is not in accordance with the settled legal principles.

4. It is also urged that the income has been taken to be on lower side as Rs.2,400/- per month whereas the minimum notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Moreover, the future prospects have not been factored while granting the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that appropriate amount has also not been granted towards non-pecuniary benefits and for the reasons aforesaid, the award deserves to be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation as the appellants could not substantiate the income and in the aforesaid circumstances, the notional income of Rs.100/- per day has rightly been taken. It is also urged that in absence of any proper income, no future prospects are admissible to the claimants-appellants and for the said reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has also perused the record.

8. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 03.12.2006 the deceased namely Mukesh Kumar, who was about 22 years of age, was riding on a motorcycle along with his cousin brother namely Pankaj Kumar on the Sultanpur-Lucknow Highway. As soon as the said motorcycle had reached a newly constructed petrol pump on the Sultanpur- Lucknow Highway between Jagdishpur to Haidargarh, a bus bearing No.UP-50-F-2656, which was coming from Sultanpur to Lucknow and belonged to Mau Depot hit the motorcycle, as a result, Mukesh Kumar lost his life on the spot.

9. In this context, an FIR was lodged and subsequently a claim petition bearing No.188/2008 came to be filed before the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Faizabad.

10. Upon exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues, however, it noticed that it was only the claimants, who have filed their evidence both oral and documentary and none of the respondents filed any oral evidence except for filing the insurance policy, driving licence as well as the registration certificate of the vehicle in question.

11. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.UP-50-F-2656. It also returned a finding that the said bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and the driver of the offending bus possessed a valid driving licence.

12. After returning all the findings in favour of the claimants, the issue regarding determination of compensation was considered and as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased, accordingly, the Tribunal adopted the notional income of Rs.100/- p