Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1281 (PAT)

Dhruva Kumar Singh v. Anand Kumar Singh

2007-08-03

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.2005 and the Award passed on 8.6.2005 by the learned 8th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 195/2003 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the appellants on account of death of their father Mahendra Singh in a motor vehicle accident caused by a bus bearing registration No. BR 06P-0116. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The case of the appellants is that their father Mahendra Singh on 19.6.2003, was dashed by the above bus driven by its driver rashly and negligently, as a result of which he died. His father was aged 48 years. He was an agriculturist and his monthly income was Rs. 2500/- per month. The appellants claimed for a compensation of Rs. 2,90,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Respondent no. 1 the owner and respondent no. 2, the Insurer, filed separate written statements contesting the claim. 4. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced came to the finding that the deceased had died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the above bus, and the driver of the bus was rash and negligent at that time. It also found that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident but as according to the learned Tribunal the appellants failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month it had assessed the monthly income on notional basis of Rs. 15000/- per annum as given in Schedule II of the said Act and calculated the total loss of the dependency to be Rs. 1,30,000/- and added Rs. 2000/-as funeral expenses. It thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation to the appellants and as Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurer (respondent no. 2) to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 82,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the application, within two months from the date of the award. 5. 2) to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 82,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the application, within two months from the date of the award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month, but simply because no certificate issued by the Circle Officer of the area in respect of the income of the deceased was filed, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellants. The approach of the learned Tribunal, hence, is wrong as it is not necessary to file such certificate. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003)7 SCC, 484 and submitted that in that case though there was no material to show the income of the deceased, who was an agriculturist having four acres of land, the Supreme Court fixed the income at Rs. 3000/- per month whereas in this case the deceased had 11 acres of land and so, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal not to fix the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 2500/-. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the above submissions and contended that the above decision of the Supreme Court does not apply in this case as in that case an agriculturist of Punjab & Haryana State was the deceased and a judicial notice can be taken that the lands are very much fertile in that State. Hence, the income assessed by the Apex Court in the said case cannot be cited as an example in the present case. The nature of land has also not been established. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the appellants have examined A.W. 1 Dhruva Kumar Singh, son of the deceased, who has stated that his father had a monthly income of Rs. 2500/- through agriculture. He has also filed rent receipts to show that more than 11 acres of land was recorded in the name of the deceased. 2500/- through agriculture. He has also filed rent receipts to show that more than 11 acres of land was recorded in the name of the deceased. But as no income certificate of the deceased issued by the Circle Officerr was produced and the rent receipts did not disclose the nature of the land, the Tribunal did not believe the above evidence with respect to the income of the deceased and fixed notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as provided in Schedule II of the said Act for non earning persons and calculated the total amount of compensation accordingly. 8. In the case of Jasbir Kaur (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that in the case of an agriculturist "the land purchased by the deceased still remains the same with the claimants as legal heirs. There is, however, possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture. Therefore, the general view about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agriculture income is the source, the attending circumstances have to be considered." 9. In that case the deceased possessed four acres of land but there was no material adduced to show the type of the land. The Supreme Court, however, fixed the monthly income at Rs. 3000/-. In the present case also though the nature of the land is not disclosed, considering the evidence adduced and the attending circumstances, the monthly income of Rs. 2500/- as stated by A.W.1 appears to be just and reasonable and the learned Tribunal should not have disbelieved it. 10. Therefore, the case of dependency as per Schedule II of the Act using the multiple 13 (as the deceased was aged 48 years) would come to (30,000-10,000) x 13 = Rs. 2,60,000/-. To this the juneral expenses of Rs. 2000/- may be added. hence, the total compensation would come to Rs. 2,62,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that when the Tribunal awarded interest from the date of the filing of the case, if should have allowed interest in respect of Rs. 50,000/-paid under Section 140 of the Act from the date of its filing of this case till its payment but it has failed to do so. 12. The above submission of the learned counsel appears to be convincing. 50,000/-paid under Section 140 of the Act from the date of its filing of this case till its payment but it has failed to do so. 12. The above submission of the learned counsel appears to be convincing. The learned Tribunal should have allowed interest for this amount also with effect from the date of application. 13. In the result, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,62,000/-. The Oriental Insurance Company (respondent no. 2) is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (interim compensation) with effect from the date of application till its payment. The Company is further directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount allowed by the Tribunal with effect from the date of the application till payment. The Insurance Company is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount enhanced by this court with effect from the date of this order till payment. The amount payable with interest must be paid within three months from this order. 14. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.