Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 101 (JHR)

Dipali Chakraborty v. J. K. Prasad

2007-02-21

DILIP KUMAR SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. No one appears on behalf of the Insurance Company. 2. This appeal by the claimants-appellants has been filed for enhancement of compensation amount. The claimants are the widow and sons of the deceased, late Hrishikesh Chakravorty. On 8.01.1996 while the deceased was going to take tea in a nearby tea shop at Lohardaga, all of a sudden, a truck bearing registration No. BHB-5121 which was being driven rashly and negligently in a high speed, came and dashed the deceased crushing him as a result of which the deceased died at the spot. 3. In the claim petition the claimants- appellants stated that the deceased was Assistant Station Master at Lohardaga and he was getting salary of Rs. 5020/-. He was aged 55 years. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement disputing the income of the deceased at the time of accident. 4. The tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence about the income of the deceased. The tribunal, therefore, took the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15000/-p.a. and assessed compensation at Rs. 1,03750/- only. 5. From perusal of the judgment it appears that the widow of the deceased deposed in the court about the factum of accident, age of the deceased and also the salary which the deceased was getting i.e. Rs. 5020/- per month. Another witness also deposed and supported the case of the claimants. It is worth to quote para 12 of the findings recorded by the tribunal which reads as follows: So far as income of the deceased is concerned, it is a case of claimants that at the time of death deceases was working as Assistant Station Master and he was getting a salary of Rs. 5020/- per month. C.W.2 wildow of the deceased has supported is contention in her examination in court. The F.I.R. shows that the deceased was working as an Assistant Station Master. On behalf of claimants no competent witness has been examined to prove the income of the deceased. 5020/- per month. C.W.2 wildow of the deceased has supported is contention in her examination in court. The F.I.R. shows that the deceased was working as an Assistant Station Master. On behalf of claimants no competent witness has been examined to prove the income of the deceased. A certificate with regard to pay particular of the deceased has been filed by the claimants, but it has not been proved by any competent witness. Therefore, in the lack of any cogent evidence in this regard it cannot be taken into consideration. O.P. has also not admit ad the income of the deceased. Although, from the FIR and evidence of witness No. 2 it appears that deceased was working as an Assistant Station Master, but claimant has failed t o prove the income of the deceased by adducing any competent evidence. Therefore, in the lack of any cogent evidence, in this regard a notional income at Rs. 15000/- per annum is taken into consideration for the purpose to calculate the quantum of compensation. 6. From the aforesaid findings it is clear that the deceased was working as Assistant Station Master which fact is also mentioned in the F.I.R. A certificate with regard to pay particulars of the deceased had also been filed. In spite of that, merely because salary certificate was not proved, the tribunal held that there is lack of cogent evidence. It is well settled that a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a summary proceeding and the rule of Evidence Act has not to be strictly followed. If a document is tendered in evidence and the same is not disputed by the other side, then the court or the tribunal has to take into consideration the said evidence. If undisputedly the deceased was a Assistant Station Master, then there is no reason to disbelieve that his monthly salary was less than Rs. 5020/- 7. In our view, therefore, the evidence adduced by the claimants was sufficient for the tribunal to hold that the deceased was Assistant Station Master and was getting salary of Rs. 5020/- per month. However, there is nothing on record to show that what was the home-take salary of the deceased. 5020/- 7. In our view, therefore, the evidence adduced by the claimants was sufficient for the tribunal to hold that the deceased was Assistant Station Master and was getting salary of Rs. 5020/- per month. However, there is nothing on record to show that what was the home-take salary of the deceased. In other words, there is no evidence to show that out of the aforesaid salary how much amount was to be deducted and what was the net amount which the deceased was carrying to his home. In absence of such evidence we can presume that the net monthly income of the deceased must not be less than Rs. 4000/-. If we take the net monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- then the annual dependency would be Rs. 48000/-. 8. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 55 years if we take the multiplier of 8 years then the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,88000/-. In our view, compensation of Rs. 2,88000/- shall be just and reasonable. 9. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the award is modified to the extent that the appellants- claimants shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,88000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 13.01.2000, as directed by the tribunal.