Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 689 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Singh

2014-03-11

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 20.8.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Addl. District Judge (FT) No.2), Beawar in claim case no.424/2011 (124/2010) whereby a sum of Rs. 6,42,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that claimants filed a claim petition stating therein that on 18.9.2009 Narayan Singh was going on his motor cycle no. R.36-SC-2613. Bus no. RJ 22-P-0184 being drivn rashly and negligently hit the the motor cycle and Narayan Singh died on the spot. The claim petition has been allowed by the court below and an exorbitant award has been passed hence this appeal to reduce the award amount suitbly. 3. The contention of appellant is that income of deceased was not proved hence the court below should assess the income of the deceased as per notional income provided under the Schedule. 4. Per contra the contention of the respondents is that the court below has assessed the income rightly and no fault can be found in this finding. It is not the case of the appellant that deceased was not earning anything and in absence of any documentary evidence, court below has rightly assessed the income. Further contention is that admittedly deceased was having four dependants hence looking to the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (MACD 2009 (SC) 353) , for personal expenses ¼th amount should be deducted. The other contention of respondents is that deceased was only 26 years of age and he was JCB operator therefore future prospects should be assessed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award as well as the original record of the case. 6. The first contention of the appellant that if no income has been proved then only on the basis of notional income, the loss of dependency should be assessed and reliance has been placed on SB Civil Appeal no. 1581/1999 National Insurance Co. v. Smt. Stya Devi and Ors , 2008 ACJ 1338 Ponnumany and another v. V.A. Mahanan and others , 2011 RAR 2009 (Raj.) Sedu Ram and Ors v. Mali Ram and ors wherein on deemed income, compensation has been assessed. 1581/1999 National Insurance Co. v. Smt. Stya Devi and Ors , 2008 ACJ 1338 Ponnumany and another v. V.A. Mahanan and others , 2011 RAR 2009 (Raj.) Sedu Ram and Ors v. Mali Ram and ors wherein on deemed income, compensation has been assessed. In the present case, the case of the claimants was that the deceased was JCB Operator but no documentary evidence or driving license was produced hence the court below has assessed the income by assumption. It is not the case of claimants that deceased was not having any income at all which could be the case under the II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act that if deceased has no income then on the basis of notional income compensation should be assessed and respondents-claimants have relied upon Laxmi Devi and Ors v. Mohammad Tabbar and Anr MACD 2008 (SC) 150 wherein Rs. 3,000 per month, notional income has been assessed as no specific income has been proved. Further reliance has been placed on Kashinathan and others v. P.A. Thangavel and others 2005 ACJ 2067 wherein no income has been proved and the court has assessed the income on basis of prevalent minimum wages. Hence the contention of the appellant is not acceptable that income should be assessed only on the basis of notional income. No documentary evidence has been produced before the Tribunal that the deceased was JCB operator and even driving license has not been produced hence the court below has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as 4,500/- per month without any basis. Taking note of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 3,000/-. and the compensation should be claculated after taking the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 7. The contention of the respondents is well founded that looking to number of dependents, the court below has erred in deducting ⅓rd income for the personal expenses hence ¼th income should be deducted for personal expenses. 8. The other contention of the respondents is that deceased was of young person of 26 years hence future prospects should be assessed and reliance has been placed on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd and ors MACD 2012 (SC) 97 ,Rajesh and Ors v. Rajbir Sing and Ors MACD 2013 (SC) 186 . 8. The other contention of the respondents is that deceased was of young person of 26 years hence future prospects should be assessed and reliance has been placed on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd and ors MACD 2012 (SC) 97 ,Rajesh and Ors v. Rajbir Sing and Ors MACD 2013 (SC) 186 . Per contra the appellant has relied on Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Datta AIR 2006 SC 1255 , where it has been held that future earning cannot be considered unless relevant facts could be proved by relevant cogent evidence. Here in the present case, nothing has been said about he fact that the deceased was having bright future. Deceased was not having any permanent job,income has been assessed on the basis of minimum wages. Hence in view of the law law down in Reshma Kumari & ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., MACD (SC) 2013 130 wherein it has been held that if the deceased is self-employed or not on fixed salary, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects should be counted. No addition for future prospects is required. 9. The appeal is partly allowed and the compensation for the loss of income is reduced to Rs. 4,59,000/- (3000 x 12x 17¼th ) instead of Rs. 6,12,000/-. The award is modified to that extent. Rest of the award is confirmed.Appeal partly allowed. *******