Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Rehana vs Smt. Ramchandra on 21 March, 2018
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
(1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 397 / 2002.
1. Shri Badruddin S/o Abdul Rehman Sorgar, aged 51 year,
2. Smt. Khatiza W/o Badruddin Sorgar, aged 45 years,
3. Smt. Habibnur W/o Jamil Muhammad @ Jamil Ahmad Sorgar, aged 25 years, All resident of Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
----Appellants Versus
1. Shri Ramchandra S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
2. Shri Ugama Ram S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 106 / 2002.
1. Shri Ghulam Rasool S/o Sultan Chippa, aged 60 years,
2. Smt. Aaysa W/o Ghulam Rasool Chippa, aged 55 years,
3. Smt. Rehana W/o Mohammed Hussain Chippa, aged 25 years, All resident of Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
----Appellants Versus (2 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002]
1. Shri Ramchandra S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
2. Shri Ugamraj @ Udairam S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
3. The New India Insurance Company, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
----Respondents (3) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 396 / 2002.
1. Smt. Rehana W/o Mohammed Hussain Chippa, aged 25 years, Resident of Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
----Appellant Versus
1. Shri Ramchandra S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
2. Shri Ugamram S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station
- Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
3. The New India Insurance Company, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
----Respondents (4) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 398 / 2002.
1. Smt. Sajida W/o Yusuf Mohammed Shekh, aged 24 years,
2. Smt. Hazra W/o Fakruddin Shekh, aged 54 years,
3. Shri Juned Aalam S/o Yusuf Mohammed Shekh, aged 5 yr., Appellant No.3 are Minor, through Natural Guardian, mother Appellant No.1.
All Resident of Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
----Appellants Versus
1. Shri Ramchandra S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
(3 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002]
2. Shri Udayram S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station
- Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
3. The New India Insurance Company, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
----Respondents (5) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 423 / 2002.
1. Himmat Singh S/o Shambhoo Singh, aged 45 years,
2. Smt. Phool Kawar W/o Shambhoo Singh, aged 42 years,
3. Smt. Kamla Kawar W/o Sangram Singh, aged 20 years,
4. Ms. Simran Kawar D/o Sangram Singh, aged 5 yr.
Appellant No.4 are Minor, through Guardian, Appellant No.1 All Resident of Deogarh, District Rajsamand.
----Appellant Versus
1. Shri Ramchandra S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station - Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
2. Shri Ugmaram S/o Chhitar Jat, R/o Surajgarh, Police Station
- Pahuwa, Tehsil - Degana, District - Nagore.
3. The New India Insurance Company, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari.
_____________________________________________________ JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment Reportable 21/03/2018 The present batch of appeals emanate from a common judgment and award dated 23.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as (4 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] the 'Tribunal') in five different claim cases emerging from one accident, which had been consolidated and decided conjointly.
Necessary and relevant facts are being narrated in a nutshell to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find, as to whether, the appellants are entitled for the relief, as prayed for, in their appeals.
On the fateful day of 6th May, 1999, when a jeep bearing registration number RJ-30/P 0298 was plying on National Highway No. 8, a mini truck bearing registration number GRX - 5484 collided with it. As a result of the said collision, four persons, namely Yusuf Mohammed, Mohammed Yusuf, Jamil Mohammed and Sangram Singh passed away; whereas, Smt. Rehana suffered injuries. The claimants filed five separate claims averring, inter alia, that the driver of their jeep Yusuf Mohammed was going on the correct side, when at about 3:00 p.m., near Gomti Chauhara, Lambodi, the offending mini truck being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Ram Chandra running on the right side of the road, in a haste of over-taking another vehicle, struck the jeep and caused the casualty.
After due appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent, while driving and the collision took place because of his carelessness. As the offending truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company, and there was no violation of the terms of the policy, the Tribunal held it liable to indemnify the owner of the mini truck, who was vicariously liable, for the headless and (5 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] headless driving by its driver.
The appeals in question filed by the claimants are targeted towards the quantum of compensation for which, the appellants have raised scores of grounds, in the course of hearing.
Broadly and basically, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, for all the appeals has been common: that all the deceased were small traders-merchants, having no fixed income, for whom production of documentary proof to substantiate their stand regarding the monthly/annual income, was not possible; the witnesses, being wives of the deceased, had appeared in the witness box and deposed on oath that their husband had been earning a particular amount; the Insurance Company had neither brought in any evidence to falsify the stand of the claimants, nor could they prove the testimony of such witnesses to be untrustworthy with the help of their cross-examination or otherwise. That being the fact situation, Mr. Sarupariya contended that there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the testimony of the witnesses and to come to an imaginary figure. He added that such approach of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced, particularly when no reason or basis for adopting such figure has been given in its order.
Mr. Sarupariya emphasized that in the circumstances like this, particularly when no contrary evidence was available, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have accepted the version of the claimants. He argued that the present case was a case of "evidence on oath against oath", and there was neither any reason (6 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] to doubt or disbelieve the testimony of the claimants' witnesses, nor was the Insurance Company able to prove otherwise. With a pinch of bewilderment in his arguments, he pointed out that the witnesses, who had deposed on behalf of the Insurance Company had not even made any assertion that the deceased were earning a sum lesser than what had been affirmed by the claimants.
Mr. Sarupariya relied upon the following judgments to lend support to his arguments:-
(i) Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 485;
Para 22 "22. Appellant's claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. But PW-1 widow of the deceased said that her husband's income was Rs.1,500/- per month. PW-4 brother of the deceased also supported the same version. No contra evidence has been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/-. In calculating the amount of compensation in this case we lean ourselves to adopt the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Though it was formulated for the purpose of Section 163A of the MV Act, we find it a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation than any other method so far as the present case is concerned."
(ii) Sri Ramchandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2951; Para 14 (7 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] "14. 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 ' 4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of ' 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. In the yar 2004, was 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 ' 3000/- per month. 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. 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 grounds 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 ' 100/- to 150/- per day or ' 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no (8 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from ' 4500/- to ' 3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was ' 4500/-."
(iii) Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1052; First two judgments, namely Smt. Kaushnuma Begum (supra) and Sri Ramchandrappa (supra) were cited by Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, learned counsel for the appellants, to buttress his submission that in case, the claimants appear in the witness box and assert that the deceased/injured was earning a particular amount, the Tribunal is expected to believe such version, until and unless the assertion of the claimants is excessive or exorbitant and any contrary evidence is brought/ produced by the defendants.
The third judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq (supra) was cited by Mr. Sarupariya in support of his contention that it is almost impossible for the claimants to lead documentary evidence in support of their income, particularly when they are not salaried employees; and in case of small traders/self-employed persons, it becomes all the more difficult to bring on record any documentary evidence, evincing their income. In such cases, the Tribunal should arrive at a figure which matches with the economic scenario and living standard of that period. He pointed out that in the judgment aforesaid, Hon'ble the Supreme (9 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] Court was considering a claim petition arising out of an accident of August, 2008, which involved death/injuries of vegetable vendors and cleaners, in which case, for the purpose of arriving at the compensation qua vegetable vendors, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has determined a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month to be a reasonable figure; whereas, in case of cleaner, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, has reckoned the prevalent minimum wages as per the notification of the Karnataka Government to be a base for arriving at approximate monthly income of the deceased/injured.
Apart from the determination of income, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in light of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants/claimants are entitled for appropriate addition for future prospects, which in all cases should be 40%, as all the deceased/injured were below 40 years of age. He added that in light of the said judgment, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the conventional head, at least in cases of deaths.
Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company, on the other hand submitted that there cannot be a fixed formula for arriving at the amount of compensation. The Tribunal is required to assess a just compensation, while taking into account not only the income of the deceased, but other relevant factors also, such as number of dependents; the inflation index; and the place of residence/work (10 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] of the deceased. He submitted that the victims of the subject accident hailed from a small Tehsil, where the standard of living is moderate, the needs of the family and the scope expenditure is less and so also, the income of the businessmen and particularly a small trader is limited, as compared to the other big cities. He submitted that in overall fact situation, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any enhancement. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, cited the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65, more particularly para 31 thereof, which is being reproduced hereunder:-
"31. Section 168 of the 1988 Act provides the guideline that the amount of compensation shall be awarded by the Claims Tribuynal which appears to it to be just. The expression, "just" means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lottery. Obviously "just compensation" does not mean "perfect or "absolute" compensation. The just compensation principle requires examination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case."
With the aid of the judgment aforesaid, Mr. Johari contended that the Tribunal has applied correct legal principles and standards, while determining the compensation and no interference is warranted in the present appeals.
(11 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] He rested his argument by submitting that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitions, viz. 25.10.1999, which in the present economic scenario is a bit excessive to be affirmed.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pertinent provisions and the judgments cited by the rival counsels at the bar.
The moot questions which have cropped up for consideration of this Court are; as to whether, the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to adhere to the strict principles of evidence and the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to leading of evidence and further, as to whether, in absence of any cross-examination about the earnings of the deceased/injured and on failure of the opposite party to bring on record any contrary evidence, the Tribunal is required to accept the version of the claimants as eternal verity ? OR the Tribunal has a discretion to deviate from such testimony and adopt or arrive at a figure, which is in sync with the prevalent economic scenario, the nature of occupation of the deceased, living standard of his family and average income of the area.
Though there cannot be a straightjacket formula for arriving at the exact income of the deceased, sans any documentary evidence, such as income tax returns, books of accounts or salary certificate etc. yet, the Tribunal is required to determined an amount which is fair, reasonable and equitable as per the established legal principles.
(12 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] In considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be a litmus test for determination of the income of a deceased, particularly in absence of ocular evidence. The exercise of determination of income of a victim cannot be done, as an investigator in a forensic laboratory. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and the Tribunal is not bound by the strict principles of evidence, while ascertaining the victim's income; which process is essentially an estimation, involving reasonable guess work and overall conspectus of the contextual facts. But in the same breath, this Court hastens to add as a word of caution, that even such discretion or guess work is required to be governed & guided by sound legal principles. The assessment of the income should be in such a manner that it is neither in excess of the income of a person engaged in the similar occupation, nor should it be too low, to be accepted.
It will not be out of place to reproduce Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being fountain head or repository of the powers of the Tribunal and procedure to be adopted by it.
"Section 168- Award of the Claims Tribunal.-(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the award of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or (13 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
Section 169-Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.-(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed, and the Claims Tribunal shall be (14 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry."
Wading through the judgments cited by the rival counsels, upon perusal of the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and after going through the other relevant judgments and law enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme court, this Court is of the considered view that the proposition as advanced by Mr. Sarupariya, that "the claimants have pleaded and deposed that the deceased/victims were earning a particular income and there was no contrary evidence in this regard, for which, the Tribunal was bound to accept the version of the claimants", cannot be accepted as a rule of law on one hand and is unpalatable and untenable on the other.
Going by the strict principles of evidence, what has been argued on behalf of the appellants, at a first flush appears to be attractive but such a telescopic view of the matter cannot be countenanced, in claim cases, particularly because the determination of compensation is not based on theorem of arithmetic or formula of physics. The Tribunal or Courts should refrain from accepting the statement of the claimants as a gospel (15 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] truth. If the income, as claimed or projected by the claimants is too excessive, to be believed, the Tribunal or Court can deter from accepting the same. If it is unrealstic and unnatural, then in that case, notwithstanding the fact that their testimony has not been demolished or no contrary evidence has been led by the owner, driver or the Insurance Company, the Tribunal can reckon a figure, which is realistic and closer to the average man engaged in the vocation of the concerned victim. Such figure should be compatible to current standards of earning of a similarly situated person, albeit, considering the geographical, overall social background coupled with economical backdrop of the victims. On the other hand, it should not be too meagre a figure, with which a family of 4-5 dependents would find it impossible to meet both ends.
It is often seen that the Tribunal adopts the minimum wage payable under the Notification issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act for ascertaining the income of a victim or deceased, completely being oblivious of the nature of occupation/business. It is true, that such criterion is a reasonable and rational criterion, but the same should better be applied, when the deceased/victims were engaged in labour oriented works, such as Massion, Helper, Agricultural Labour etc. But these standard rates cannot be applied in case of a small time trader; shop keeper; vegetable vendor etc., as a thumb rule.
The determination of income in such case is a daunting venture, if not impossible.
(16 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] In Indian social structure, a husband, struggling to win bread for the family is not extrovert enough to divulge his income and liabilities to his other family members, including his wife; more particularly when he has no fixed income. Income of a small trader, such as vegetable vendor, milk-man, tea vendor etc. is dependent upon hordes of factors, such as harvest, festival, spending habits of inhabitants and their economic background. A Coolie, milk-man, vegetable or fruit vendor may have higher income in Metros or bigger cities, whereas a person engaged in the same business in small towns may not earn even a half of it. At the same time, the expenditure or cost of living, in different parts of this vast and divergent country is also different.
The claimants appear in the witness box and make assertion about the income of the victim, without stating anything about the dependency, monthly expenditure or living standard of their family. There is generally no deposition about the spending habits of the victim, so as to help the Tribunal in arriving at a figure, which he would have spent on himself. There are scores of factors impacting the assessment and determination of loss of income or dependency, which the dependents would be visited, when they lose their sole earning member. The exercise to be undertaken by the Tribunal/Court is an uphill task and no fixed formula or guideline can be laid down for assessment of income and dependency, particularly when the claimants are not in a position to produce any documentary evidence in support of their assertion and when their claim is solely based upon the oral statement.
(17 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] We cannot lose sight of another vital aspect that the defendants - owner of the offending vehicle or the Insurance Company etc. are also unable to lead any direct documentary or oral evidence in this regard. They cannot be asked to produce negative evidence. However, they may dismantle or shatter the case of the claimants by way of appropriate cross-examination, if they wish to negate the assertions of the claimants.
In such circumstances, it is required of the Tribunal to give due weightage to the testimony of the claimants, albeit, with corresponding cross-examination by the defendants.
The following words of noted sociologist William Bruce Cameroon aptly describes such situation:-
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
The Tribunal while deciding a claim case should keep larger perspective and vision, avoiding the conventional telescopic approach, so that a just and reasonable compensation can be arrived at.
Adverting to the present factual matrix, it is noticed that the claimants in each case have asserted that the victim used to earn an income ranging from Rs.4500/- to Rs.6000/- per month, which deposition has not been negated by the defendants. Neither the owner nor the Insurance Company have been able to falsify the version of the claimants, by leading cogent evidence.
(18 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] However, the Tribunal has reckoned a figure of Rs.1500/- to Rs.1800/- per month in all these claim cases. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal has not given any reason or basis for arriving at such figure.
It is an admitted or proven fact that the victims were engaged in some trade or business. Curiously, the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum even for a non-earning victim. Hon'ble the Supreme court has directed the Central Government, time and again, to revise the Schedule and until such amendment, [Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors.: (2014) 1 SCC 244], has held that the notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum should be adopted. Relevant portion of the said Judgment is being reproduced here infra:-
"38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard.
39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the (19 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] parents, namely, the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident by applying the legal principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs. 50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.
40. The said amount will carry interest @ 9% p,.a. by applying the law laid down in MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., for the reasons that the Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or keptin the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified."
A perusal of the above judgment reveals that the accident in the above case took place in the year 1992 (on 19.07.1992) and dating back to that period, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has (20 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] determined the income of the deceased, who was found helping the claimants in their agriculture occupation, at a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum.
As against this, the deceased/injured in the present cases were undisputedly involved in small business/trade when the unfortunate incident took place in May, 1999 and yet the Tribunal has determined the compensation treating monthly income of the victims to be Rs.1500/- to Rs.1800/-. If the annual income so reckoned by the Tribunal is upheld, it will not only be inequitable, but travesty of justice also, inasmuch as in case of a minor or a non-earning member, the annual income or notional income of Rs.30000/- is to be adopted, whereas the income of the victims who were admittedly engaged in trade or vocation have been held to be earning even less than the non-earning victims.
Looking to the overall factual and legal matrix, as discussed above, and keeping pace with the inflation, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was a bit conservative in assessing the income of the victim in each case; if an appropriate appraisal is made of the evidence adduced, the economical and social status of the victims vis-a-vis the minimum wages prevalent at that time; and geographical and economic condition of the area; viz. a Tehsil headquarter.
In the year 1999, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker was Rs.1300/- per month. A trader or a self-employed person cannot be believed to be earning even less than a workman. A self-employed person engaged in Trade applies his (21 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] capital; business acumen etc. His avocation generates a regular an uninterrupted influx of income, whereas a casual worker may or may not get the work all the 30 days in a month. Hence, such traders, entrepreneurs are likely or expected to earn more than a skilled worker. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that estimation of income of a Trader on the basis of wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act is inappropriate and unsustainable.
In the backdrop of the discussion foregoing, I proceed to decide each case one by one, while taking into account the antecedent and relevant facts and evidence appertain to determination of the amount of compensation:- (1) CMA No. 397/2002
"Badruddin & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors."
This appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 395/1999, which was filed by the claimants seeking compensation for accidental death of Jamil Mohammed, aged 30 years, who was running a shop of fancy items, locks and keys.
With a view to have a better appraisal, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire statement and cross - examination of AW-3, Smt. Habibnur wife of the deceased Jamil Mohammed, which reads thus:-
^^esjs ifr dk uke tehy vgen FkkA ftuds efugkj] rkyk dqaph dh nsox<+ cktkj esa nqdku FkhA esjs ifr izfrekg pkj&lk<+s pkj gtkj djhcu dek ysrs FksA esjs ifr dh nq?kZVuk ds le; 30 lky dh mez FkhA djhcu ikSus nks lky igys esjs ifr dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks x;hA esjs ifr dh yk"k dks nq?kZVukLFky ls jktuxj yk;sA jktuxj ls (22 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] nsox<+ yk;sA ftldk thi dk fdjk;k 500@& :i;s yxkA esjs ifr dh yk"k dk pky&pykok fd;kA iwjk lekt ,df=r gqvkA vU; gekjs lkekftd jhfr fjokt] /kkfeZd vuq"Bku oxSjk djok;sA esjs ifr ds bu lHkh dk;ZØeksa ds djhcu 10 gtkj :i;s O;; gks x;sA esjs lkl&llqj esjs ifr ds lkFk gh jgrs Fks ,oa vkt Hkh lkFk gh jgrs gSA mudk xqtkjk esjs ifr gh pykrs FksA esjs ifr dh nqdku esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn dksbZ laHkkyus okyk ugha gksus ls vc can iM+h gS D;ksafd esjk nsoj NksVk gSA esjs llqj dh vk;q vf/kd gksus] chekj gksus ls dke ugha gks ikrk gSA esjs llqj dk fnekx Hkh esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn vlarqfyr jgrk gSA esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn gekjk iwjk ifjokj dk ekufld larqyu fcxM+ x;k gS ,oa fdlh dke esa eu ugha yxrk gSA esjs ifr dh ;kn vkrh gSA esjs ifr esjs llqj ,oa lkl ds lkFk gh jgrs FksA esjs ifr dekbZ djds lkl&llqj dks gh nsrs FksA gekjs lkekftd fjokt ds vuqlkj ge yksx lk<+s pkj ekg ?kj esa gh cSBs jguk iM+rk gSA dksbZ dke ugha gksrk gSA ftlls Hkh gesa uqdlku gks jgk gSA esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn lekt ds o ifjokj ds yksx gesa <ka<l cka/kus vk;sA ftlds fy;s Hkh gesa lkjk [kkuk&ihus dk O;; djuk iM+k tks djhcu 50 gtkj :i;k O;; gqvkA esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn esa fo/kok gks x;hA esjh igkM+ leku ftUnxh iM+h gS vkSj ftUnxh cckZn gks x;h gSA iwjh vk;q rd oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk iM+sxkA eSa esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls muls izkIr gksus okys lsok] lgkjk] laj{k.k] izse] lkgp;Z ls ges"kk&ges"kk ds fy;s eg:e gks x;h gwaA esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls vkfFkZd fLFkfr [kjkc gks x;h gSA gekjh vk; dk dksbZ tfj;k ugha gksus ls vc ?kj pykus esa cM+h eqf"dy vk jgh gSA eq>s ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA gekjs xkS= esa lksjxj gksrk gSA nq?kZVuk ls lacaf/kr dkxtkr is"k fd;s gSA esjs ifr dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ iz-&112 gSA izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-
(23 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] ;g ckr lgh gS fd nqdku esjh llqjth dh gSA esjs llqjth ds nks yM+dksa esa ls ,d thfor gSA ftldh vk;q 13&14 lky dh gksxhA esjs llqjth LoLFk gS ijarq muds yM+ds ds ejus ds ckn mudk ekuflad larqyu lgh ugha jgrk gSA mudk ewM gksrk gS rks gh dke djrs gS ojuk ugha djrs gSA nqdku dHkh can jgrh gS dHkh [kqyh jgrh gSA izfrfnu 125&150 :i;s djhcu ykrs FksA eSa i<+h fy[kh ugha gwa blfy, nqdku ugha pyk ldrh gwaA ;g xyr gS fd esjs ifr gtkj :i;s izfrekg dekrs gksaA ;g xyr gS fd Dyse vf/kd ls vf/kd ikus ds fy;s dekbZ T;knk crk;h gksA izfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha- iqu% ijh{k.k & fuy** A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Habibnur, the wife of the deceased Jamil Mohammed shows that she had categorically deposed that her husband used to earn Rs.4000/- to Rs.4500/-
per month and that her family including her father-in-law, mother-
in-law were dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring to fore any contrary fact which could falsify her stand. Even during their evidence, the Insurance Company has failed to bring any material contrary to the stance of the claimants.
In view of the aforesaid testimony and looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that Devgarh is a Tehsil Headquarter, I feel that it would be reasonable to reckon the monthly income of the deceased Jamil Mohammed at Rs.3000/-
per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum.
(24 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] In light of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is re-
calculated as under:-
Rs.36,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) : Rs.6,48,000/- (-) one-third deduction : Rs.2,16,000/-
_____________
Total Amount Rs.4,32,000/-
Add 40% future prospects : Rs.1,72,800/-
Non-Pecuniary Damages Rs. 75,000/-
_____________
Total Rs.6,79,800/-
Less already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,22,000/-
______________
Additional Amount Payable Rs.4,57,800/-
_____________
The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.(2) CMA No. 106/2002
"Ghulam Rasool & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors."
This appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 345/1999, which had been filed by the dependents of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf, aged 25 years, who was a shop keeper.
The statement and cross - examination of AD-1, Rehana wife of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf, which are relevant for the present purpose is reproduced here infra:-
^^esjs ifr dk uke ;qlqQ eksgEen FkkA mldh nq?kZVuk ds le; vk;q 25 lky FkhA ;g nq?kZVuk nsox<+ vkSj jktuxj ds chp esa ykecksM+h uked LFkku ij gqvk FkkA eSa thi esa cSBh gq;h FkhA ge jktleUn ls (25 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] nsox<+ tk jgs FksA lkeus ls ,d feuh Vªd vk;kA ;g fnukad 6-5-99 dks nksigj 3-00 cts dh ckr gSA Vªd vksojVsd djds vk jgk FkkA gekjh tks thi lgh fn"kk esa py jgh Fkh] ds VDdj ekj nhA ;g nq?
kZVuk Vªd pkyd dh xyrh ds dkj.k gq;hA Vªd pkyd Vªd dks rst xfr] ykijokgh ls pyk jgk FkkA mlesa gekjs lkFk tehy] esjs ifr] vU; vkSj Hkh FksA esjs ifr dh Hkhe esa nqdku FkhA esjs ifr dh Js'B cht Hk.Mkj dh nqdku Fkh ftldk izek.k&i= izn"kZ&1 gSA esjs ifr izfrekg 5&6 gtkj :i;s dek fy;k djrs FksA nqdku fdjk;s dh FkhA vk;"kk izkFkhZ la-&2 esjh lklw gSA izkFkhZ la-&1 xqyke jlwy esjs llqj gSA esjs tcMksa esa] dwYgksa esa] flj ij pksV yxh FkhA ftldh pksV izfrosnu fjiksVZ izŒ&2 gSA ,eŒ,yŒlhŒfjiksVZ izŒ&3 gSA esjs dks pksV yxus ds ckn jktlean ysdj vk;sA fQj esjs dks mn;iqj ys x;sA esjk mn;iqj esa 6 fnuksa rd bZykt pykA fQj esjs dks vgenkckn] iVok uflZax gkse] ys x;sA fQj mlds ckn esa fdjk;s ds edku esa jghA fnukad 14-7-99 dks okfil nsox<+ vk;hA chp esa 2&3 ckj vgenkckn x;hA bl izdkj esjk bZykt pykA esjs tcMs ds vanj IysVs fcBk;h psgjsa dh ltZjh gq;hA vka[kkas ds uhps IysVsa MkyhA blesa djhcu gekjk 2 yk[k :i;k O;; gks x;kA eSa izkbZosV Ldwy esa i<+kus tkrh Fkh ,oa ?kj ij flykbZ dk dke djrh Fkh ftlls djhcu 2 gtkj izfrekg dek ysrh FkhA lky Hkj rd esjk bZykt pyk vkSj eq>s vkjke djuk iM+kA iqfyl dkxtkr is"k fd;s gSa ftlesa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izŒ&4] pkyku izŒ&5] ipkZ ekSdk izn"kZ&6] 133 ,e-oh-,DV dk uksfVl izn"kZ&7] ;qlqQ firk xqyke jlwy] eqlyeku dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ izŒ&8] bU";ksjsUl Vªd izŒ&9] vkjŒlhŒ Vªd izŒ&10 gSA esjs ifr i<+s&fy[ks Hkh FksA iVok uflZax gkse] vgenkckn dk fMLpktZ dkMZ izŒ&11] MkWDVj dh jlhn uŒ&12 gSA bZykt dh ifpZ;ka izŒ&13 ls izŒ&33 rd gSA izŒ&34 ls izŒ&81 rd fcy gSA izŒ&82 ls izŒ&87 rd ifpZ;ka gSA izŒ&88 ls izŒ&97 rd ,Dljs dh jlhnsa ,oa fcy gSA okgu dh jlhnsa izŒ 98 ls 108 rd gSA budh fjiksVZ ¼tkap½ (26 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] izn"kZ&109 gSA esjs ifr dh nq?kZVuk gksus ls vc dksbZ dekus okyk ugha jgk gSA eq>s esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk iM+ jgk gSA eq>s ekufld ,oa "kkjhfjd ijs"kkuh gq;h tks thoui;ZUr cuh jgsxhA ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/kŒ&thŒ,lŒ pwaMkor vf/kŒ ge ukFk}kjk ls nsox<+ tk jgs FksA thi pkyd dk uke ugha tkurh gwa dsoy bruk tkurh gwa fd og eqlyeku FkkA thi ds vanj djhcu 6&7 O;fDr cSBs gq;s FksA eSa thi pkyd ds ihNs okyh lhV ij cSBh gq;h FkhA tgka nq?kZVuk gq;h ogka lM+d lh/kh gSA us"kuy gkbZos gksus ls lM+d pkSM+h gSA thi tk jgh Fkh] dks :dokdj ge cSBs FksA ;g xyr gS fd thi okyk rst xfr ls thi dks pyk jgk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd dbZ fVªi djds ds pDdj esa rst pyk jgk gksA ;g xyr gS fd bl nq?kZVuk esa thi pkyd dh xyrh ls gq;hA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd vksojVsd dj jgk gksA [kkn dh nqdku vc dksbZ pykus okyk ugha gSA eSa i<+h fy[kh gwaA ge ?kj ls ckgj ugha fudyrs gSA esjs llqj us bZykt dk lkjk [kpkZ fd;k gSA eSa vc Ldwy esa i<+kus tkus yxh gwaA eSa vc flykbZ dk dke fcYdqy ugha dj ikrh gwaA eSa flykbZ dk dke ?kj ij gh lh[kh FkhA esjs llqjth igys v/;kid Fks vc lsokfuo`r gks x;s gSA eSa xuh HkkbZ ds ;gka xksn x;h gwaA eSa vc llqj ,oa lklw ds lkFk jg jgh gwaA fHkMUr gksus ds rqjUr ckn eSa csgks"k gks x;h FkhA thi ,oa Vªd dk uacj ;kn ugha gSA bruk esjs dks irk ugha fd Vªd okyk dkSuls okys okgu dks vksojVsd dj jgk FkkA bruk irk gS fd vksojVsd dj jgk FkkA esjs ifr ihNs nks lhVsa gksrh gS mlesa esjs lkeus cSBs gq;s FksA izfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha- iqu% ijh{k.k & fuy** (27 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Rehana, the wife of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf Mohammed shows that she has asserted that her husband, carrying on the business of selling Seeds in the name and style of "Shreshtha Beej Bhandar" in Bheem used to earn Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month.
Though said witness was cross-examined by the counsel for Insurance Company, but nothing fruitful could be retrieved to doubt her testimony. Even during its evidence, the Insurance Company failed to bring any material contrary to the stance of the claimants.
In view of the aforesaid testimony and looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that a person engaged in the business of purchase and sell of seeds cannot be presumed to be earning Rs.1800/- per month only, as the business of seed not only requires license but specialised knowledge. Hence, it would be appropriate to determine the monthly income of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf at Rs.3500/- or Rs. 42,000/- per annum.
In light of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is re- calculated as under:-
(28 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] Rs.42,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) : Rs.7,56,000/- (-) one-third deduction : Rs.2,52,000/-
_____________ Total Amount Rs. 5,04,000/-
Add 40% future prospects Rs. 2,01,600/-
Non-Pecuniary Damages Rs. 75,000/-
_____________
Total Rs.7,80,600/-
Less already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,77,200/-
______________
Additional Amount Payable Rs.5,03,400/-
_____________
The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.(3) CMA No. 396/2002
"Smt. Rehana Vs. Ramchandra & Ors."
The present appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 357/1999, which was filed by Smt. Rehana and related to the injuries suffered by her in the aforesaid accident.
A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,275/-, which includes the amount spent by her for medicines and treatment, compensation for the injuries suffered by her and mental agony arising therefrom and loss of earning etc. It is to be noticed that Rehana, wife of the deceased also got injured in the said accident and undergone treatment firstly at Udaipur and then at Ahmedabad. While deciding the claim petition (29 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] filed by her, for the injuries she had sustained, a sum of Rs. 50,225/- spent on her treatment at Ahmedabad has been awarded by the Tribunal, while also awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of her earning during the treatment besides awarding an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the Taxi fare to Ahmedabad.
A reading of the said award reveals the financial status of the family, who took the injured in a Taxi and spent a huge amount of Rs.50,225/- for her treatment, duly supported by the documentary evidence.
Apparently there is no nexus of the decision of claim case relating to Rehana vis-a-vis the present case filed for loss of earning of Mohd. Yusuf, her husband. But the same is definitely a pointer to the spending capacity and financial status of the family as expenditure of Rs.50,000/- in the year 1999 was not a small thing by any standards. Hence, the adjudication of the claim case of Rehana also becomes relevant and it has a necessary bearing even in the present case.
Having gone through the evidence available, this Court feels that the amount awarded to her, is just and proper looking to the period in which the claimant had suffered injuries and mental agony arising therefrom. The appeal fails and is thus dismissed. (4) CMA No. 398/2002
"Smt. Sajida & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors."
This appeal emanate from a Claim Case No. 344/1999, which was filed by the claimants, claiming compensation for fatal (30 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] accident of Yusuf Mohammed, aged 28 years, the driver of the jeep, which was involved in the fateful accident.
This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire statement and cross - examination of AD-4, Smt. Sajida wife of the deceased Yusuf Mohammed, which reads thus:-
^^esjs ifr dk ,DlhMsaV 6 ebZ] 99 dks nsox<+ vkSj jktleUn ds chp ykEcksM+h ds ikl gqvk FkkA esjs ifr thi esa cSBs FksA mudh vk;q 25 lky ml le; FkhA esjs ifr pkyd Fks vkSj xkM+h pykrs FksA os izfrekg 5000@& :i;s dekrs FksA muds firk dk uke Qd:nhu mQZ ulhj eksgEen gSA izn"kZ la-&2 gkftjk esjh lklw gSA izkFkhZ la- 3 esjk iq= gS ftldk uke tqusn vkye "ks[k gSA bl cPps dk tUe 2 vDVwcj]99 dks gqvk FkkA ftldk izek.k&i= izn"kZ&13 gSA iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ izn"kZ & 114 gSA iqfyl dkxtkr vU; i=kofy;ksa esa iznf"kZr gks pqds gSA esjk cPpk tqusn iSnk gqvk tks ,e-th- vLirky HkhyokM+k esa iSnk gqvk tks izn"kZ&115 gSA esjs ifr ds ejus ds vkn gekjs dekus okyk dksbZ ugha gSA eSa] esjh lklw] esjk cPpk lkFk jgrs gSA ?kj dke eqf"dy ls py ik jgk gSA muds ejus ds ckn eSa fcYdqy cslgkjk gks x;h gwaA thuk nwHkj gks x;k gSA tc Dyse is"k fd;k ml le; eSa xHkZorh FkhA ;g eSaus vius odhy lkgc dks ugha crk;kA buds Qkfr;k oxSjk esa djhcu 50000@& :i;s O;; gks x;sA eq>s ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-
esjs ifr thi pykrs FksA mudh thi pykus dk ykblsal ;gka is"k ugha fd;k gSA esjs ifr nwljksa dh thi pykrs FksA esjs ifr thi tgka HkkM+k feyrk ogka pykrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd dks 1500@& :i;s izfrekg gh feyrs gksA osru izek.k&i= is"k ugha fd;k (31 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] gSA esjs ifr vk;dj ugha nsrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd esjs ifr 1500@& :i;s esjs dks nsrs gks vkSj ckdh vius ikl j[krs gksA dkSulh thi pykrs] uacj ;kn ugha gSA fnynkj lkgc dh pykrs FksA fnynkj lkgc ds ;gka gh dke djrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd c<+k&p<+kdj Dyse is"k fd;k gksA esjs ,d cPpk gS uke tqusn vkye "ks[k gSA izfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Sajida, the wife of the deceased Yusuf Mohammed shows that she had clearly stated that her husband, Yusuf Mohammed aged 25 years, was a driver by profession and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month.
The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring forth any contrary fact. Even during their evidence, the Insurance Company had failed to bring any evidence contrary to the stance of the claimants.
Looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that the deceased was a driver, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to determine the monthly income of the deceased Yusuf Mohammed at Rs.3500/- per month or Rs.42,000/- per annum.
In light of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is re-
calculated as under:-
(32 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] Rs.42,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) : Rs.7,56,000/- (-) one-third deduction : Rs.2,52,000/-
_____________ Total Amount Rs.5,04,000/-
Add 40% future prospects Rs.2,01,600/-
Non-Pecuniary Damages Rs. 75,000/-
_____________
Total Rs.7,80,600/-
Less already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,77,200/-
______________
Additional Amount Payable Rs.5,03,400/-
_____________
The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.(5) CMA No. 423/2002
"Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors."
The present appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 396/1999, which was filed by Himmat Singh, father of the deceased Sangram Singh, aged 23 years.
To decide the present appeal, it will not be out of place to reproduce the statement and cross - examination of AD-2, Smt. Kamla wife of the deceased Sangram Singh, which reads thus:-
^^vkt ls djhcu ikSus nks lky igys dh ckr gSA esjs ifr laxzkeflag dh vk;q e`R;q ds le; 23 lky Fkh ftudh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks x;hA esjs ifr nq?kZVuk ls igys tujy LVksj ij ukSdjh djrs FksA og izfrekg <kbZ gtkj :i;s dek fy;k djrk FkkA blds vykok [ksrh&ckM+h Hkh laHkkyrs FksA os nw/k Hkh csprs FksA ?kj dk [kpkZ esjk ifr gh pykrk FkkA ?kj dk [kpkZ esjs lkl&llqj] esjs cPps] NksVs&NksVs nsoj Fks] dk [kpkZ (33 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] esjk ifr pykrk FkkA esjs llqj dh vk;q & 47 lky dh ftuls dksbZ dke ugha gks ikrk gSA nq?kZVuk ds ckn esjk llqj dk LokLF; cgqr T;knk [kjkc gksus yx x;k gSA esjs ifr ls ,d cPph iSnk gq;h ftldk uke fleju gS nq?kZVuk ds le; Ms<+ lky dh FkhA nq?kZVukLFky ls jktuxj yk;s fQj mn;iqj ys x;sA tgka mudh e`R;q gks x;hA mn;iqj esa esjs ifr dk bZykt pyk FkkA tgka 5&6 gtkj :i;s O;; gks x;sA muds ejus ds ckn yk"k dks gekjs xkao yk;sA ftldk thi dk fdjk;k ,d gtkj :i;k fn;k FkkA ?kj ykdj nkg&laLdkj fd;k x;k A lkjk fØ;kdeZ fd;kA nku&iq.; fd;kA mudh vfLFk;ka folftZr djus xaxkth ys x;sA esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn ifjokjtu o iwjk lekt gels feyus vk;kA ftuds fy;s gesa Hkkstu oxSjk dh O;oLFkk djuh iM+hA gekjs dqy feykdj 50&60 gtkj :i;k O;; gks x;kA esjk ifr Ms;jh o [ksrh ls nks gtkj :i;s djhcu izfrekg vyx ls dek ysrs FksA lkjk ?kj dk [kpkZ os gh pykrs FksA esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls gekjs lkjs ifjokj dh vkenuh dk lgkjk pyk x;kA esjh cPph Hkh vukFk gks x;hA eSa Hkh thou Hkj ds fy;s fo/kok gks x;hA esjs lkl&llqj dk cq<+kis dk lgkjk Hkh fNu x;kA esjs ifr dh e`R;q ls mlls izkIr gksus ls izse] lsok] lgkjk] laj{k.k] lkgp;Z ls oafpr gks x;hA gekjs jktiwr lekt esa L=h nwljk ukrk Hkh ugha dj ldrh gSA eq>s iwjk oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk iM+sxkA eq>s ekufld ihM+k cuh jgrh gSA esjs ifr dh ;kn vkus ls ekufld larqyu fcxM+ tkrk gSA eSaus iqfyl dkxtkr is"k fd;s gSA esjs ifr dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ iz- &110 gSA pksV izfrosnu izi= iz-&111 gSA eq>s ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-
esjs ifr ckjgoha rd i<+s gq;s FksA esjs ifr i<+kbZ djrs Fks vkSj tujy LVksj ij ukSdjh djrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd laxzke esjs ifr ,d gtkj ;k ckjg lkS :i;s gh dekrs gksA ;g xyr gS fd eSaus esjs ifr dh vkenuh vf/kd Dyse ikus ds fy;s vf/kd crk;h gksA [ksrh vkt Hkh gekjs gSA ;g xyr gS fd esjs llqj vkt Hkh [ksrh&ckM+h djrs gSA izfr ijh{kk& ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha (34 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] iqu% ijh{k.k & fuy** A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Kamla, wife of the deceased Sangram Singh shows that she had stated that her husband, Sangram Singh aged 23 years, used to serve in a General Store and had been drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- per month. It has also been deposed by her that apart from the aforesaid employment, he used to sell milk and also used to help the family occupation of agriculture; and in all, he used to earn Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month. Se had deposed that the entire family was dependent upon his income.
The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring to fore any contrary fact which could falsify her testimony. Even during their witness, the Insurance Company failed to bring any evidence which would raise a doubt about the testimony of the claimants.
Having regard to the overall fact situation, including the fact that Devgarh is a Tehsil Headquarter, this Court feels that it would be reasonable to reckon the monthly income of the deceased Sangram Singh at Rs.3500/- per month or Rs.42,000/- per annum. Looking to the number of his dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses is also reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.
(35 of 35) [ CMA-397/2002] In light of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is re-
calculated as under:-
Rs.42,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) : Rs.7,56,000/- (-) one-fourth deduction ; Rs.1,89,000/-
_____________ Total Amount Rs.5,67,000/-
Add 40% future prospects Rs.2,26,800/-
Non-Pecuniary Damages Rs. 75,000/-
_____________
Total Rs.8,68,800/-
Less already awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,22,000/-
______________
Additional Amount Payable Rs.6,46,800/-
_____________
The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.
Accordingly, Appeal No. 397/2002 (Badruddin & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.), Appeal No. 106/2002 (Ghulam Rasool & Ors.
Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.), Appeal No. 398/2002 (Smt. Sajida & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.), Appeal No. 423/2002 (Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.) are allowed, as indicated above; whereas Appeal No.396/2002 (Smt. Rehana Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.) is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/