Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 120 (RAJ)

Prem Bardia v. Shri Shokat Hussain

1996-01-29

B.R.ARORA, P.C.JAIN

body1996
Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.94 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the Award dated 29.7.93 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimants alongwith interest @12% per annum. (2). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Judge of the Tribunal have not properly considered the evidence produced by the appellant regarding the income of deceased Sumer Lal Bordia. The learned Judge of the Tribunal neither determined the monthly income of the deceased nor applied the proper multiplier and awarded the lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The deceased, at the time of his death, was 41 years of age and was M.Sc. Technology (Applied Geology) and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from granite business. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and further submitted that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence available on record and the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side rather than on the lower side. (3). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (4). The claimants, before the Tribunal, placed on record two Income Tax Returns Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 showing the income of the deceased. As per the Income Tax Returns of the deceased, the returned income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 30,000/- per years. Though in the statement the claimants have stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- but in view of the returned income of the deceased, their evidence cannot be believed being contrary to the returned income filed by the deceased claimants before the Income Tax Department. If we accept the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month as per the returned income then after deducting 1/3 of the income which the deceased was spending on himself, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/- per years. If we accept the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month as per the returned income then after deducting 1/3 of the income which the deceased was spending on himself, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/- per years. The deceased, at the time of his death was aged about 41 years as per the evidence of the claimants and, therefore, the multiplier of eleven can be applied in such a case. Thus, the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,20,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- can be treated as compensation towards loss of consortium, love and affect and other losses. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in awarding the lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimants. (5). The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and the award of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has considered the evidence in the right perspective and rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation t the claimants. The amount cannot be said to be, in any way, on the lower side. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants summarily. We see no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as in the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (6). In the result, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.