GANGAPPA Vs. S N BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellants learned Advocate. The respondents had not appeared before the Tribunal and were placed exparte. The duty of this Court, therefore, would be to review the order passed by the Tribunal and to consider the submission of the appellants learned Advocate who has urged that the compensation awarded should be stepped up.

(2.) THE deceased in this case was injured in the National Highway No. 4 by a Military Truck, while he was riding his scooter. He was seriously injured and he was moved to Manipal Hospital, where he continued to be under treatment though in a state of coma for over three months until he finally passed away. The parents, who are the claimants before the Tribunal, had contended that they are solely depending on him for their livelihood, that the deceased was conducting milk vending business and that he had substantial turn over, where by he used to earn approximately Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has discarded this evidence only because not a scrap of material was produced in support of this contention nor any oral evidence adduced. Appellants learned advocate submitted that there was no reason that the Tribunal should have disbelieved it.

(3.) FIRSTLY, our answer is that there is no reason as to why the learned Advocate who conducted the case before the Tribunal could not have produced whatever secondary evidence that was normally available in support of the fact that the deceased was supposed to have been doing milk vending business in order to indicate to the Tribunal, whether, in fact, this plea was at all true. Secondly, what was the volume of the business and thirdly, what was, in fact, the average earning form that business. The total absence of any material, whether it was Bank Pass Books or the like or even simple Account Books or even oral evidence of the persons who are assisting the deceased in conducting the so called business, leads one to the conclusion that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting that plea.