Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 633 (RAJ)

Narhari Dalai v. Bhoj Raj Sharma

2012-03-13

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30th November, 2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (here-in-after to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), decreed an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents. Aggrieved and totally dissatisfied with the amount of compensation under the award, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the same. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impunged award, it is revealed that on 17th April, 2008, the deceased Sachin @ Sachitra was going with Hanuman on motor-cycle bearing Registration No.RJ-14-MY-1751. It is alleged that about half a kilometer before Chaksu, one Max Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-26-TA-0170 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly emerged in wrong side and hit the motor-cycle, as a result of which, Sachin sustained grievous injuries on his person and finally succumbed to them. The appellants-claimants filed a claim petition, wherein the award was passed by the Tribunal as indicated hereinabove. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has preferred this appeal mainly on one ground that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,500/- per month and the appellant also filed the certificate in support thereof, yet the Tribunal considered only minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time and jettisoned the pay slip sans assigning any cogent reason. Learned counsel further canvassed that the income of Rs. 8,500/- per month of the deceased should be considered and the amount of compensation should be re-reckoned. 4. It is relevant to record that the Judge of the Tribunal having discussed the evidence emerging on record adlongum, observed that the claimant, albeit, filed the pay slip (Ex.13) to prove the income of the deceased, but neither the appellants-claimants submitted the appointment letter of the deceased which could prove that he was working as a Maintenance Technician in City Max Hospital nor they examined the concerned authority who could prove the pay slip of the deceased Sachin, so as to further prove that his income was Rs. 8,500/- per month. Mere oral testimony or filing one paper exhibiting the income of a person is not suffice to evince the income of the deceased. The onus was on the claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,500/- per month. Mere oral testimony or filing one paper exhibiting the income of a person is not suffice to evince the income of the deceased. The onus was on the claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,500/- per month, which was possible only when the employer would have appeared in witness box or the concerned would have proved the same. Hence, in view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have rightly considered the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time for computing the loss of dependency. Though, the learned counsel has not argued on any other aspect of the case, yet the Tribunal is found to have taken care of other aspects also and the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- under the award, in the facts and circumstance of the case cannot be said to be improper and unjust. In contra, it is found to be just and apposite and suffers from no infirmity. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, which stands dismissed accordingly.