Gauhati High Court
State Of Meghalaya And Ors. vs Rajesh Kalia And Ors. on 7 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)2GLR44
Author: P.P. Naolekar
Bench: P.P. Naolekar, A.H. Saikia
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. The facts in a narrow compass for disposal of this case are that on 2.3.1986 at about 8.30AM while Sudarshan Kr. Kalia (since deceased) was proceeding on his scooter from Dimapur to Jagiroad for his contractual work of North East Frontier Railway one ambassador car -belonging to Government of Meghalaya, Forest Department dashed with his scooter and as a result thereof, said Sudarshan Kr. Kalia had died on 2.3.1986. The claimants, who were minor sons and daughters have filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for the death of their father. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati after recording the evidence of the parties have reached to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the ambassador car. The Court has recorded the findings that at the time of death, the deceased was 44 years of age and was earning an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month. Taking 1/3rd amount of his earning being the amount spent by the deceased for himself, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that his earning which would have been spent on his dependents was Rs. 2,000 and applying the multiplier of 13, the court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,02,000 plus Rs. 10,000 as funeral expenses with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
2. Being aggrieved by the said award of compensation the State of Meghalaya filed the present appeal before this Court. It is contended by Ms. B. Dutta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding income of Rs. 3,000 based on no evidence as the claimants had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of income of the deceased. On perusal of the record, we find that there is no oral or documentary evidence led by the claimants to prove the income of their father. But the Claimant No. 2 Ms. Anita Kalia has filed an affidavit on 27.5.2002 wherein it has been stated that her father was allotted construction contract work of Degree College at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and he had started construction work of Degree College at Itanagar for which he was granted Innerline Permit. The claimant also produced the Innerline permit No. 184 dated 4.7.1985 issued by the Circle Officer, Naharlagum, permitting the entry of the deceased for the purpose of construction work at Itanagar, The aforesaid documents clearly indicate that at the time of death of Sudarshan Kumar Kalia, he was engaged in the business of contract work. Although there is no oral or documentary evidence available in the record indicating the income of the deceased, this court can safely assume that he was earning an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month, he having been engaged in the construction contract work.
3. While considering the evidence in the matter of accident claims case strict rule of evidence does not apply. The Court may rely upon the evidence produced before it by way of affidavit. In the present case, the evidence produced before the Tribunal was in the form of affidavit sworn by one of the claimants and the original copy of the Innerline permit issued by the competent authority, which satisfies this court conscious that the claimants/respondent's father was working as a contractor and was earning an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. On the aforesaid finding the calculation of the amount of compensation made by the Tribunal, in our opinion, was correct and this Court does not find any good or sufficient reason to interfere with it. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.