Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2975 (RAJ)

Islamuddian v. Islamuddian

2005-11-14

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. [See Paras 11 Appeals Allowed 2. These three appeals, arise out of the common Judgment and same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment . 3. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the claimant appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the Judgment /award-dated 20.12.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,10,960/-in the case of death of Shahzad Bano, Rupees 91,120/-in the case of deceased Mst. Husaini Bano and Rupees 6,200/-in the case of injured Mst. Rashida. 4. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 431 of 1997 relates to the death of Shahzad Bano and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 430 of 1997 relates to the death of Mst. Husaini Bano. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased. He submits that the oral evidence was produced to the effect that deceased Mst. Shahzad Bano was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month and same evidence was produced in the case of deceased Mst. Husaini Bano, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 35/- per day only, therefore, the compensation should be awarded after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-per month. 6. He further contended that even if the amount of compensation is calculated on the basis of assessment of income made by learned Tribunal treating the minimum wages as income of the deceased than the multiplier of 13 in the case of Mst. Shahzad Bano and the multiplier of 11 in the case of Mst. Husaini Bano were wrongly applied looking to their age. His contention is that Mst. Shazad Bano was 35 years of age and as per schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the proper multiplier was 17 whereas in the case of Mst. Husain, who was 45 years of age the proper multiplier was 15 which ought to have been applied. Therefore, his contention is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced after adopting the proper multiplier. So far as the claimant injured Smt. Rashida is concerned, his contention is that although she sustained only two injuries, which were found to be simple in nature but amount of Rs. Therefore, his contention is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced after adopting the proper multiplier. So far as the claimant injured Smt. Rashida is concerned, his contention is that although she sustained only two injuries, which were found to be simple in nature but amount of Rs. 6,200/-is a meagre amount and it should also be enhanced. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages as there was no documentary evidence available on record to show the monthly income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month. His next contention is that in case the deceased persons were in employment than there was no reason for not producing their income certificate issued by their employer. Therefore, there is no justification to disturb the findings of the Tribunal so far it relates to the income of the deceased and dependency is concerned. So far as contention of the appellant about the proper multiplier as contended above to be applied in the case is concerned, the same has not been disputed seriously by the Counsel for respondents. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment and the statements recorded by the Tribunal. Copies of the statements of the applicants witnesses have also been produced for perusal by learned Counsel for the claimant appellants during the course of arguments. 9. It appears that the deceased persons have disclosed their income as Rs. 3,000/-per month in their statements before the Court, but contention of the respondents appears to be reasonable to the effect that in case the deceased persons were in employment than there was no reason for not producing the income certificate issued by their employee. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned Tribunal is not relying upon the testimony of the applicants witnesses about the monthly income of the deceased persons. In the absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion and assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 35/-per day and calculating the amount of compensation after deducing 1/3 amount out of it towards the personal expenses. In the absence of documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion and assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 35/-per day and calculating the amount of compensation after deducing 1/3 amount out of it towards the personal expenses. Although, the learned Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where the Tribunal is required to determine just and reasonable compensation and it is not necessary to use the multiplier system as appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The multiplier table is meant for application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereas the present application for compensation was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In some of the Judgment , the said table has been used as a guideline even for application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but in some of the Judgment the said table has not been followed and just and reasonable compensation has been awarded. 10. After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I think it fit and proper to allow these appeals and enhance the amount of compensation of Rs. 91,120/-to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-in the case of Mst. Husaini aged about 45 years in CMA No. 430 of 1997. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,10,960/-in the case of deceased Mst. Shahzad Bano, aged about 35 years is enhanced to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-in CMA No. 431 of 1997. 11. So far as the injured appellant Mst. Rashida is concerned. Although there was oral statements wherein it was stated that she sustained fractures, but no X-ray report or X-ray plate was produced on record. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant has referred the discharge certificate of Mst. Rashida wherein a facture has been shown having sustained by her. The best documentary evidence for proving the fractures is only X-ray plate and X-ray report and no other evidence can be proper evidence. However, after considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I enhance the amount of Rs. 6,200/-to Rs. 10,000/-in the case of injuries sustained by Mst. Rashida in CMA No. 429 of 1997. 12. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed. 13. The amount of compensation in CMA No. 430 of 1997 relating to deceased Mst. However, after considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I enhance the amount of Rs. 6,200/-to Rs. 10,000/-in the case of injuries sustained by Mst. Rashida in CMA No. 429 of 1997. 12. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed. 13. The amount of compensation in CMA No. 430 of 1997 relating to deceased Mst. Husaini Bano is enhanced from Rs. 91,120/-to Rs. 1,65,000/-in CMA No. 431 of 1997 relating to deceased Mst. Shahzad Bano is enhanced from Rs. 1,10,960/-to Rs. 1,90,000/-and in CMA No. 429 of 1997 the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 6,200/-to Rs. 10,000/-. The amount of Rs. 91,120/-, Rs. 1,10,960/-and Rs. 6,200/-respectively have also been paid to the respective claimant appellants. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay only the remaining amount of Rs. 73,880/-Rs. 79,040/-and Rs. 3,800/-to the respective appellants within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Tribunal. 14. Learned Tribunal is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest in CMA Nos. 430 of 1997 and 431 of 1997 in the MIS of the Post Office in the name of appellants for a period of six years. The appellant will be allowed to withdraw the monthly interest accrued thereon. 15. There will be no order as to costs.