AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been directed challenging the impugned judgment dated 11.8.2009 rendered by the learned Tribunal adjudicating the MACP No. 19/2008.
Accident occurred on 23.12.2007 at 5:45 PM in the District Haridwar when Shri Suresh Kumar Garg, aged about 45 years, scooter borne a man, was going along with his daughter Neha Garg, a pulsar motor cycle UA 08C-7574 dashed the scooter and as a consequence thereof Shri Suresh Kumar Garg and Km. Neha Garg both suffered serious injuries. Shri Garg, later on, succumbed to the injuries. So, his dependants-wife, son, daughter and parents instituted the petition claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,10,000/-, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,31,000/- along with 6% simple annual interest. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants have come up in this appeal.
The respondent nos. 1 & 2, the motor cycle owner and driver, has sufficiently been served but, they have not turned up while the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company is present before the Court.
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has raised only two questions that the average income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return of financial years 2003-04; 2005-06 & 2006-07 has been deduced by the Court to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Even then, such income has been reduced by Rs. 20,000/- brining it at the scale of Rs. 90,000/- only for evaluating the compensation.
I feel that the income tax return evincing the whole income can not strictly be a basis for evaluating the compensation, in case, where the deceased used to run a small private business because such income is always likely to augment or diminish in the future. There remains always an uncertainty in making the earnings from the private small or big business whatsoever. Therefore, if the Tribunal has reduced the average income by Rs. 20,000/- then nothing wrong has been committed on its part because, in such matters, the concept of just and appropriate compensation is attracted. Such award is not calculated taking into consideration of minuscule details.
The second contention argued by the learned counsel of the appellant is that the motor cycle has been said by the Tribunal to be in the quite wrong side while scooter borne deceased was on his side on the road. Even then, 20% liability has been further reduced on account of contributory negligence.
On this score, I am unable to interfere in the impugned judgment for the reason that the scooter borne youth or any person coming from in front always remains in a position to avoid the accident by exercising more caution in such moments, even though, the motor cycle coming from in front was on his quite wrong side. Futher, Shri Suresh Kumar Garg was also not wearing any helmet too, which could have saved his life. So, in this score as well, some negligence may be attributed on his part too.
In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.
The appeal is hereby dismissed.