Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2455 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithlesh

2011-11-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City dated 9.1.2003 by which, a sum of Rs.15,18,451/- has awarded as compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has argued that the learned Tribunal had no basis to hold that income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month because it was contrary to the evidence that was produced by the claimants by way of only one bill i.e. Exh.293 of M/s.Winery Systems, a computer institution, which indicates that deceased was doing the job work in the month of June, 2001 and he was paid Rs.11,575/-. Statement given by the widow of deceased AW-1 Smt.Mithlesh shows that her husband was running a computer centre and that he used to impart training to 10-12 students and used to charge Rs.500/- per month from each of them. She further stated that her husband was also earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the printing work and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month from the work of Data Entry but that was not fully believed by the Tribunal. Tribunal erred in law in taking the element of future prospect because deceased did not have any permanent employment. Therefore, accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month by any account was not justified. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that widow of the deceased AW1 Smt.Mithilesh has stated that her husband used to contribute Rs.15,000/- per month to the family after deducting expenses of the business. Apart from her, her mother-in-law and minors sons and daughter were dependent upon him. Her husband had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojana and another Rs.1,00,000/- from the relatives and then started the business of Computer Center. Her husband had passed away about ten years ago and that he used to impart training to 15-20 students by charging Rs.500/- per month from each of them, Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the printing work and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month from the work of Data Entry. In her cross-examination, AW1 Smt.Mithilesh remained unshakened. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also relied on the statement of AW2 Dinesh. Learned counsel referred to various other documents especially those, which proved the long treatment of the deceased. In her cross-examination, AW1 Smt.Mithilesh remained unshakened. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants also relied on the statement of AW2 Dinesh. Learned counsel referred to various other documents especially those, which proved the long treatment of the deceased. Learned counsel in particular argued that during the cross-examination of AW1 Smt.Mithilesh by the Insurance Company, she has stated that her husband used to hand over her Rs.15,000/- per month. In the circumstances, therefore, learned Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting income of the deceased atleast to be of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also argued that there were five dependents and in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) in the event of number of dependents being four to six, only 1/4th amount should be deducted towards self expenses of the deceased whereas, in the present case, 1/3rd amount has been wrongly deducted by the Tribunal. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that document Exh.293 i.e. a bill of M/s.Winery Systems, a computer institution shows that deceased was being paid Rs.11,575/- in June 2001. It was stated that by running a computer centre and imparting training to 10-12 students, deceased used to earn Rs.500/- per month by charging fee from each of the students and further, Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the printing work and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month from the work of Data Entry. Further, deceased had taken a loan for starting a computer centre in the name and style of M/s.Akash Computer Center. There are documents on record to show that computer equipments were purchased by the deceased on loan. Even though no documentary evidence has been produced but from the statements of AW1 Smt.Mithilesh and award, it emerges out that the deceased obtained a Diploma in Computer Science about ten years ago and that he used to impart training to the students in computer centre, which in those time was having very much futility. 5. Even though income of the deceased cannot be accepted as Rs.10,000/- per month but at the safer side, income of the deceased is accepted as Rs.6,500/- per month. 5. Even though income of the deceased cannot be accepted as Rs.10,000/- per month but at the safer side, income of the deceased is accepted as Rs.6,500/- per month. Number of dependents being five, hence in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards the self expenses of the deceased. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra, 1/4th amount is assessed to be deducted towards the self expenses of the deceased. Award however on all other non-pecuniary heads is maintained. 7. Computing thus : 6500X12x18= 14,04,000/- and after deducting 1/4th (Rs.3,51,000), the amount comes to Rs.10,53,000/- (14,04,000–3,51,000 = 10,53,000). After adding Rs.78,451/- awarded to the claimants under all other non-pecuniary heads in the amount of Rs.10,53,000/- now assessed, the net amount comes to Rs.11,31,451/- (10,53,000 + 78,451 = 11,31,451). Claimant-respondents No.1 to 5 are entitled to receive amount of compensation of Rs.11,31,451/- together with interest as per the award of the Tribunal from the date of filing claim petition. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.