Patna High Court - Orders
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mostt.Chhanguri Devi & Ors on 6 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.485 of 2008
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.....Appellant.
Versus
MOSTT.CHHANGURI DEVI & ORS....Respondents.
-----------
9 6.5.2010Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Misc.appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 21.1.2008 and 27.2.2008 respectively passed by Sri Bipin Bihari Lal, Addl. District Judge - cum -Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court- III, Katihar, in Claim Case No.37/04.
3. According to the claimants the deceased Dwarika Yadav died in motor accident on 15.8.2004 because of accident caused by Tractor No.BR-39/5372 and Tailor being Registration No.BR-39/5373. The claimants are widow and six children.
4. According to the claimants the deceased was employed in R.B.H.M. Jute Mill, Katihar, and his monthly income was about Rs.3800/-.
5. The owner, driver and the appellant the Insurance Company appeared and filed contesting written statement. After trial the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,78,00/- as just compensation.
6. The learned counsel Sri Ram Chandra Das appearing for the appellant only submitted that the learned tribunal has not deducted 1/3rd from the yearly income of the deceased on the ground of his personal expense. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- on 2 account of education of children which has not been provided in second schedule. The learned counsel further submitted that there were differences in the pay slip and, therefore, the learned court below should not have considered monthly income to be Rs.3800/-.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents claimants submitted that pay slips were filed and the learned court below has taken into account. There is no evidence adduced by the appellant contrary to the evidence of the claimants. The learned court below has relied upon the pay slips and, therefore, in appellate jurisdiction that cannot be interfered with. So far wrong calculation is concerned the learned counsel submitted that there is no wrong calculation and that Rs.15,000/- has not been awarded on the ground of education.
8. From perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award it appears that after taking into consideration the monthly income of Rs.3800/- the learned court below has multiplied it with 12 which comes to Rs.4,5600/- and thereafter deducted 1/3rd from it and yearly income has been calculated at Rs.30400/-. Therefore I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 1/3rd has not been deducted. From perusal of the Judgment it further appears that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for love and affection and for education and not that it was awarded only for education.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case these are all technical grounds raised by the appellants and on 3 these technical grounds I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and award.
10. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, this Misc.Appeal is dismissed.
11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Court may be transferred to the court below so that the claimants may withdraw the same from the court below.
AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )