SAVITA BAI Vs. VINOD KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the award dated 10.8.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 13/2005 by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG). M.A.No. 306/2006 has been filed by the National Insurance Company for reducing the quantum of award, whereas, M.A. No. 1097/2005 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. So far as assessment of the income is concerned, AW-1, Savita Bai, stated on oath, that the deceased was having a kirana shop in village Salheghori, from which he was earning Rs. 250-300/- per day. It was the only kirana shop in the village. The deceased had 6 acres of agriculture land, in which, they were cultivating paddy, wheat and gram etc. She stated that in fact, the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from the kirana shop. In support of the fact that the deceased was running a kirana shop, she had filed many documents like license etc. issued by the Excise Department to sell tobacco and various notices in relation to the shop issued from time to time. She has also filed the records of the agriculture land. The contents of the documents, filed by the claimants would show that the deceased was running a kirana shop in the village. She was cross examined at length on the point of income of the deceased but nothing material could be brought on record on which it could be said that the deceased was not having such a kirana shop as pleaded by the claimants. It is in this state of evidence, the Tribunal assessed that the deceased was earning Rs. 200/- per day and Rs. 6,000/- per month from his said kirana shop. The Tribunal has not assessed any income of the deceased from agriculture land. After going through the entire material on record, we do not find any fault in the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal. The same is based on oral testimony of AW-1, Savita Bai (widow of the deceased) as also the documents relating to the shop field by her. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum from his kirana shop which was being run in village Salheghori and the arguments relating to assessment of income of the deceased cannot be accepted.