ANCHALA SUNNY Vs. SREEKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They are the wife and two minor children of the deceased who suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 24. 6. 2001 and succumbed to such injuries 14 days later. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-as compensation. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,67,700/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_168_TLKER0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> According to the appellants, the deceased was a welder and was earning rs. 5,000/- per mensem. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as PW. 1. Exts. A1 to A10 were marked.

(2.) THE appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants want to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants assail the impugned award on the short ground that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal to determine the loss of dependency is too inadequate and grossly insufficient. The tribunal had clinching materials before it to show that the deceased was a welder and that the accident occurred when he was travelling in a vehicle along with his welding tools. Even in the absence of better evidence, the tribunal must have shown reasonableness in fixing the quantum of earning of the deceased, submits the learned counsel for the appellants. The deceased had a family of four including his wife and two minor children. It was thus easy for the Tribunal to assume that the deceased must have been earning an amount much higher than Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. Reasonable inference should have been drawn by the Tribunal. In not doing so, the Tribunal had gone perversely wrong. Tribunals are constituted to render rough and ready justice. Even in the absence of clinching evidence, reasonable inferences can be drawn by the Tribunal. In this context, we take note of the fact that the Second Schedule to the motor Vehicles Act from 1994 permits drawal of the presumption of prudence that even for a non earning person, Rs. 1,250/- can be assumed to be the monthly income. So reckoned, we are definitely in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that on the materials available, it was possible for the Tribunal to assume that the deceased must have been drawing at least Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. In coming to this conclusion, we note that the burden is on the claimants to satisfy the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased to enable the Tribunal to award reasonable and fair amounts to them. If satisfactory evidence is not placed before the Tribunal, it is only the claimant who has to suffer. That does not mean that the Tribunal can close its eyes to the indisputable circumstances. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs. 2,500/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of better evidence adduced by the appellants. Consequently, the appellants will be entitled to a further amount of Rs. 60,000/- (2500x12x2/3x15 minus 2,40,000) as compensation for loss of dependency in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to say that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate fixed by the tribunal from the date of the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the third respondent/ Insurance Company contends that as a matter of fact, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to the appellants in the light of the decision reported in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh, 2008 (4) K. L. T. 552 (SC ). But, it is admitted that the insurer had already satisfied the impugned award and the amounts due under the award have already been deposited. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company can be accepted.