KULSUMBAI Vs. SHARDUL G PATADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surendranagar decided several motor accident claims by a common order dated 14-3-75 including the M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974. The present First Appeal has been filed against the order relating to M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974 decided on 14-3-1975. The deceased Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed was about 45 years of age at the relevant time. He was preparing slippers and selling the same at Ahmedabad. The case of the claimants was that he was earning Rs. 400.00 P. M. He met with an accident after midnight of 17-3-73 on the National Highway between Bagodara and Limbdi at about 2.0 a. m. Taxi No. GTX 34 owned by one Shardul Gandalal was being driven by Premji Bhanji. The vehicle left Ahmedabad for Rajkot with seven passengers therein. One Jayantilal Kanjibhai the sole survivor form amongst the occupants of the taxi was in the rear seat. His uncle Jeraj was also in the rear seat. One Vasantlal whom Jayantilal came to know at the S. T. Stand also sat in that taxi. Three persons were sitting in the front seat alongwith the driver and four were in the rear seat. Mohmedbin Abdulla Arab. Lallubhai Devchand Noormohmed Allarakha and Haji Abdulkar Haji Ahmed were there in addition to the driver Premji. Jayantilal who is the sole survivor who was asleep at the time of the accident became unconscious after two days in the Hospital. Therefore the claimants are not in a position to give version as to how the accident took place. The Taxi collided with public carrier No. GTY 3573 driven by Praful Dolatram Jagtap. The ownership of the public carrier is in dispute. After the accident the driver of the public carrier when to the Limbdi Police Station at about 3 a. m. and gave the information about the accident. The heirs of Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed filed the M.A.C.T. No. 20 of 1974. Thus there is no dispute about the vehicles involved in the accident and that Haji Abubakar Haji Ahmed was one of the deceased.

(2.) . Reading the income of the odecreased the oral evidence of Kulsum wotmess mp 19 and ashraf witness No.20 i.e. the wife and the cousin of the deceased respectively have come on record. Kulsum has stated that her husband , who was preparing slippers and solling the same used to sent her Rs.400/ P.M.. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased could not be assessed to be more than Rs.200 P.M. and taking notice of the fact that he had to maintain himself, his wife and four children, the total number of Unit will be equivalent to Rs.20.00. Thus, deducting Rs.50.00 from Rs.200.00, the dependency vaule was computed to be Rs.150.00 p.M. which was multiplied by 12 and the dependency value per year was computed to Rs.1800.00. This annual dependency value adding a sum of Rs.3000.00 as conventional amount a compensation of Rs.24600 was awarded.

(3.) . Aggreieved by this order, the claimants in the M.A.C.T. No.20 of 1974 have preferred this first Appeal under Section 1100 of the Motor Veheicals Act read with section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in computing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.200.00 only. The only ground, which has been given by the Tribunal in disbelieving the statement of Kulsum is that she did not produce the letters which are alleged to have been sent to hre by her husband while sending the amojnt and further that the persons, to whom the slippers were being sold out had not been examined. I have considered the available record and have gone through the reasons given by the M.A.C. Tribunal. Merely because the letters, which were sent to Kulsum by her deceased husband, were not produced. The same could hardly be a ground to disbelieve her statement that she was in receipt of Rs.400.00 P.M. from her knowledge that such routine letters are be produced before courts some time and those persons, sho are engaged in petty job of preparing slippers, sell out such slippers to different persons and no record of such persons can be available with a person engaged in such a petty job of preparing slippers. These reasons could hardly be sufficient to disbelieve the statement of the wife of the deceased. Moreover witness Ashraf cousin of the deceased has also corroborated that the deceased was earning Rs. 400 P.M. Therefore conclusion reached by the Tribunal in taking the income to be Rs. 200.00 P. M. does not appear to be correct.