Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 604 (RAJ)

Santosh Kanwar v. Bhanwar Lal Daroga

2012-03-06

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 21st October, 2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal {Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7}, Jaipur Metropolitan decreed an amount of Rs. 5,05,000/- in favour of the claimants appellants and against the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award only on one ground that the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the quantum of compensation was considered only Rs. 4000/- per month, whereas the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- out of agriculture, Rs. 6000/- from running a dairy and Rs. 4000/- by driving a tractor. Despite there being cogent evidence with regard to income of Rs. 20,000/- per month of the deceased, the Tribunal considered only Rs. 4000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased, which is abysmally low in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Having carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and scanned the relevant documents, it is revealed that the dependents albeit filed copies of the entry of revenue record i.e. Ex. 15, 16 and 17 and copy of the registration certificate Ex. -14 of the tractor, which was found to be registered in the name of appellant Santosh Kanwar, and claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 20,000/- per month, but mere filing of the copies of revenue record and the photostat copy of the registration certificate do not by themselves prove that out of agriculture and by having a tractor, the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Unless there is a cogent and trustworthy evidence on record, which may lead the court to infer that the deceased was not earning less than Rs. 20,000/- per month, which is being claimed by the dependents, his income cannot be taken to be so in the absence of clinching evidence. Since there is no trustworthy evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal is found to have rightly considered Rs. 4000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. 20,000/- per month, which is being claimed by the dependents, his income cannot be taken to be so in the absence of clinching evidence. Since there is no trustworthy evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal is found to have rightly considered Rs. 4000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. This income is undeniably found to be more than the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time. Though the income of Rs. 4000/-, in the facts and circumstances of case, cannot be said to be higher in limit, yet it cannot be said to be exiguous in the facts and circumstances of the case also. The Tribunal, having considered Rs. 4000/- to be the monthly of the deceased, also took care of other aspects of the case and thus, the impugned award is found to be just and proper and warrants no intervention. 6. The appeal, thus, being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, which stands dismissed accordingly.