SARITA JAIN Vs. MOHD ZAHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13.07.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi in Claim Petition No.515/1992 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand only) with interest thereon, for the untimely demise of Sh. Parveen Kumar Jain in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 04.05.1992.

(2.) THE appellants as legal representatives of the deceased had filed a claim petition on 12.08.1992 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading the respondents 1 to 3 as the driver, the owner and the insurer of the alleged offending tempo bearing No. DL-IL-3592, which had hit the two wheeler scooter of the deceased resulting in his sustaining fatal injuries. It was pleaded by the appellants in the claim petition that the deceased was a businessman and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month, that he left behind him a young widow, two minor children and his parents, and that the son and daughter of the deceased were studying in a public school.

(3.) PURSUANT to the said order, an affidavit by way of evidence was filed by Smt. Sarita Jain, the widow of the deceased, who tendered the same in evidence as AW1/1 alongwith the Form of Order of Assessment under Section 23 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Form of Order of Assessment under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Exhibit AW1/2 and Exhibit AW1/3). The witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, but her testimony emerged unshaken even after extensive cross-examination and, as a matter of fact, she reiterated in her said cross-examination that her husband was carrying on the business of General Merchant (Kiryana Business) and Commission Agent from Shop No. 1/4670-B, Balbir Nagar Extension, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, which premises he had taken on rent for the purpose of carrying on the aforesaid business. On a specific query put to her by the counsel for the respondent no.3, she stated that she was in possession of the rent-receipts of the said shop. She also reiterated that she had two children who were studying in Class VI and Class II respectively at the time of her husband's death in Rs. Little Flower Senior Secondary School', Shahdara, Delhi and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month was being spent on their education. The witness also confirmed that she knew that the firm M/s P.K. Traders was registered with the Sales Tax Department, but stated that she did not know if her husband was an income tax payee. She further stated that a plot had been purchased by her husband in her name in the year 1984, which was in her possession alongwith the sale-deed thereof. She categorically denied the suggestions put to her that her husband was not earning Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousands only) per month and that her children were not studying in an English medium school.