KAREEMUNNISA BEGUM Vs. V JOGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact that the deceased died in an accident on account of the injuries received by him is not in dispute. The claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that has been granted at Rs.51,800/- have preferred this appeal. On a perusal of the evidence let in before the tribunal, this court is satisfied with regard to the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving and the same is confirmed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the oral evidence let in on behalf of the claimants shows that the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of his death. The Insurance Company claimed that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of his death. The lower court came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 45 years.

(3.) It must be borne in mind that it is for the claimants to prove the age of the deceased at the time of his death, and the burden never shifts on the other side. When the claimants have come forward with the oral evidence which is found to be not reasonable and when they have not filed any document either from the Municipality or the Voters list or any other document and when it is suggested to the witnesses that the age of the deceased was 50 years the lower court by duly taking into account the demeanour of the witnesses who made the statements assessed age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 45 years. It is neither reasonable nor permissible for this Court to interfere with such a finding. If there is any documentary evidence and if it has been mis-read and if there is oral evidence supported by any documentary evidence, this court can interfere with such a finding. Therefore, the finding with regard to the age of the deceased is also confirmed.