Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 438 (RAJ)

Kanya Bai Prajapati v. Raghuveer Prasad Rebari

2019-02-06

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Family Court), Baran (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. The tribunal seriously erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-. Indisputably, the deceased was a vegetable vendor. While assessing the compensation, the tribunal erred in not accepting the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month by selling vegetables. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no documentary evidence was required to be produced. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq etc. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company reported in MACD 2014 (SC) 84 : 2015(1) RLW 191 (SC). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-insurance company has opposed the appeal and has submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/-, the tribunal was right in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State Government at the relevant time. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The claim-petition was filed by the appellants asking for compensation on account of death of one Jagannath in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.05.2016. 6. After hearing the parties, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. While assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal did not accept the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by selling vegetables. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Syed Sadiq Etc. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company reported in MACD 2014 (SC) 84 : 2015(1) RLW 191 (SC) in para 8 and 9 observed as under: "8. 8,000/- per month by selling vegetables. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Syed Sadiq Etc. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company reported in MACD 2014 (SC) 84 : 2015(1) RLW 191 (SC) in para 8 and 9 observed as under: "8. The Appellant/claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at Rs. 3500/- p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 : MACD 2011 (SC) 144, has held as under:- 13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs. 4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs. 100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day or Rs. 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from Rs. 4500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs. 4500/-. 9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the Appellant/claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs. 6,500/- per month." 8. This is not in dispute that the deceased was a vegetable vendor. Taking note of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court, I am of the considered view that though no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month by working as vegetable vendor. Keeping in mind the inflation and rise in prices, it is difficult to believe that the vegetable vendor is not capable of earning more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. Thus, keeping in mind the inflation and the judgment quoted above, I am inclined to believe that the deceased must have easily been earning Rs. 7,500/- per month at the time of the accident. 9. Keeping in view the number of dependents, one third of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, keeping in mind the inflation and the judgment quoted above, I am inclined to believe that the deceased must have easily been earning Rs. 7,500/- per month at the time of the accident. 9. Keeping in view the number of dependents, one third of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 65 years, multiplier of 7 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 4,20,000/- (7500 x 2/3 x 12 x 7). The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs. 4,90,000/- (4,20,000+70,000). 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 15.03.2018 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs. 4,90,000/- instead of Rs. 3,50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. It is ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.