Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 739 (RAJ)

Tara Devi v. Gauri Lal Meena

2009-03-09

K.S.CHAUDHARI

body2009
Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 07.1.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Claim No.56/97 (Tara Devi & Others vs. Gauri Lal Meena & Others) by which the tribunal awarded claim of Rs.2,31,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was travelling in Jeep No.RJ-14-1C-3093. On 23.9.1996 at 6.45 A.M, Truck No.RJG405 which was driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently collided with Jeep and caused death of Gauri Shankar. Respondent No.1 is registered owner of this truck and it was insured by respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and respondent No.3 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording the evidence, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.2,31,000/-, against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and appearance of respondent No.2 has been dispensed with vide order dated 21.4.2008. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned tribunal had committed error in assessing the income of deceased as Rs.1500/-per month instead of Rs.6000/-, hence the appeal may be accepted and the awarded amount may be enhanced whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased in the absence of any documentary evidence, hence appeal may be dismissed. 5. The appellants have mentioned the age of deceased Gauri Shankar to be 25 years in the claim petition and P.W.1 Tara Devi has also stated in her statements that at the time of accident the age of her husband was 25 years. This fact further corroborated by Postmortem Report Exhibit-3. In such circumstances, the learned tribunal has rightly held that the age of deceased Gauri Shankar was 25 years at the time of accident and correctly applied multiplier of 17 as provided in the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per statements of witnesses the income of deceased was Rs.6000/- per month whereas the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased only Rs.1500/-per month. P.W.1 stated that her husband was running a business of Readymade and Hosiery Garments in the name of “Prabhat Readymade Center, Renwal”. He used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. P.W.1 stated that her husband was running a business of Readymade and Hosiery Garments in the name of “Prabhat Readymade Center, Renwal”. He used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not produced any license or books of account pertaining to shop. She cannot say whether deceased had any bank account or not. P.W.2 Dolat Ram and P.W.3 Rampal have stated in their statement that deceased had income of Rs.6000 to 7000 per month. They have admitted in their cross examination that they have stated income of deceased as revealed by deceased himself once. Their statements cannot be believed because they had no personal knowledge of deceased's earning. They have further stated that deceased was 26 years at the time of death whereas P.W.1 Tara Devi wife of deceased has mentioned the age of deceased to be 25 years at the time of accident in her examination in chief as well as in cross-examination. Thus it is clear that both the witnesses are exaggerating the income of deceased and showing age of deceased to be 26 years for the purpose of enhancing multiplier. In such circumstances, these witnesses cannot be believed. Tara Devi has not produced any documentary evidence pertaining to business of deceased as the deceased was running Readymade garments. He must have obtained licence, certificate of registration under Sales Tax and other documents etc. She has also not produced any rent note of shop in which the deceased was running the shop. She has also not disclosed any Bank Account. In such circumstances, it cannot be believed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-at the time of his death. The learned tribunal has assessed income of deceased to be Rs.1500/- per month, but if it is believed that the deceased was running Readymade shop, his income can be assessed to be Rs.1800/- per month instead of Rs.1500/- per month. 7. As per above discussion, deceased's income can be ascertained to the tune of Rs.1800 per month. After deducting one-third in consideration of expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, dependency of appellants can be ascertained to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month. In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to Rs.1200/- x 12 x 17 = 2,44,800/- as compensation. After deducting one-third in consideration of expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, dependency of appellants can be ascertained to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month. In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to Rs.1200/- x 12 x 17 = 2,44,800/- as compensation. As per Schedule, appellants are entitled to claim Rs.9500/- as general damages whereas tribunal has awarded Rs.27,000/- which should not have been awarded. In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to get Rs.2,54,300/- as compensation instead of Rs.2,31,000/-. 8. Consequently, in the light of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 07.1.2000 passed by Judge, MACT Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur is modified to the extent that the appellants will be entitled to get Rs.2,54,300/- instead of Rs.2,31,000/- with interest @ 12%on the enhanced amount from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 17.7.1997 till realisation of amount.