Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 96 (UTT)

BASANTI DEVI v. LAKHVINDER SINGH

2014-03-20

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). For the reasons stated, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CLMA No. 6730 of 2012 stands disposed of. 2. Present appeal is filed assailing the award dated 24.01.2012 passed by MACT/ Additional District Judge, Haldwani, Nainital in MACP No. 172 of 2008 (Basanti Devi and others Vs. Lakhvinder Singh and another). 3. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Basant Ram was travelling in a Bus No. UP 01 3800 on 20.06.2008. Bus was being driven with high speed and driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus. The bus at about 07.30 a.m. had fallen in a ditch near Veerbhati Bridge on Bhowali Haldwani Road, as a result of which, Basant Ram sustained injuries and died on the spot. A Claim Petition was preferred by the widow, three children and mother of Basant Ram. It is stated in the claim petition that Basant Ram was employed with Jhalani Traders, Railway Bazar, Haldwani and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 8000/-, therefore, Rs. 15,00,000/- were claimed towards the compensation. 4. Learned Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has observed that since salary could not be proved, therefore, it cannot be said that Basant Ram was working with Jhalani Traders, Railway Bazar, Haldwani and was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month, therefore, his notional income was assessed @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses and has applied the multiplier of 14 and thereafter, learned Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 3,78,000/-, Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000 towards loss of state and Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection, as compensation. 5. I have heard Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite valid service. I have carefully perused the record as well. 6. Although, as per case of the claimants and statement made by PW2 Ravi Kant, Basant Ram was employed with M/s Jhalani Traders, Railway Bazar, Haldwani and was getting Rs. 8000/- per month, However, from the statement of PW2, it could not be proved that Basant Ram was getting salary Rs. 8,000/- per month. 6. Although, as per case of the claimants and statement made by PW2 Ravi Kant, Basant Ram was employed with M/s Jhalani Traders, Railway Bazar, Haldwani and was getting Rs. 8000/- per month, However, from the statement of PW2, it could not be proved that Basant Ram was getting salary Rs. 8,000/- per month. In my considered opinion, to find out the notional income, the Tribunal must take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the unskilled labour. Moreover, under the MNREGA Scheme, 20 days employment is mandatory to be provided to every adult residing in a village @ Rs.150 per day. If Rs. 150 per day is assessed as notional income of a daily wager, then his monthly notional income would be Rs. 4,500/- per month, therefore, monthly notional income of Basant Ram should have been assessed and is hereby assessed as Rs. 4500/- per month. Since five persons were dependent on Basant Ram deceased, therefore, 1/5 should be deducted towards his personal expenses. 7. Since as per the postmortem report, deceased was aged about 48-year, therefore, learned Tribunal was wrong in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 12. 8. Considering the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2012 (1) UD 427, in my considered opinion, there would be enhancement of 20% in the income of Basant Ram, therefore, his monthly income would have come to Rs. 4500 + 20% of Rs. 4500 i.e. Rs. 900/- = Rs. 5400/-. After deducting 1/5th towards his personal expenses, his monthly income would have come to Rs. 4320/- and his annual income would have come to Rs. 51,840/- and by applying the multiplier of 12, amount of compensation would be Rs. 6,22,080/-. Over and above, claimants are also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of state and ‘ 10,000/- towards love and affection, as granted by the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, appeal is partly allowed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 6,42,080/- to the claimants/appellants within 30 days from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date claim petition is filed till the date actual payment is made. 9. Therefore, appeal is partly allowed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 6,42,080/- to the claimants/appellants within 30 days from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date claim petition is filed till the date actual payment is made. If entire amount is not paid within 30 days from today, then claimants/appellants shall be entitled to be paid interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 19.04.2014 till the actual date of payment is made.