GEETA RANI BISWAS Vs. GURUKRIPA TRAVELS VIDISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment M.A. Nos. 74 and 115 of 1998 are decided as both the appeals arise out of common award.

(2.) IN this appeal only question involved in this case is regarding quantum of compensation and whether respondent Durgabai is entitled for compensation on account of death of Dr. Surendra Kumar Biswas. Other findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are not under challenge.

(3.) WE have gone through the evidence on record. PW 1 Geeta Rani, wife of the deceased, has deposed in para 4 of her deposition that income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000 per month. She has further deposed that the deceased was having two dispensaries one at Raisen and other at village Ganjbasoda in District Vidisha. In the cross -examination on the question of income, this witness has deposed in para 22 that income of her husband was Rs. 7,000 p.m. from the clinic at Ganjbasoda. In the same para, she has further deposed that her husband was income tax payer and used to pay income tax but she could not get papers regarding payment of income tax. PW 4, Mahanand Kumar Biswas, had deposed that the deceased was a doctor and has a large practice. His income was around Rs. 1,000 -1,500 per day and his net savings was between Rs. 250 -300 per day. He admitted that Geeta Rani was the wife of the deceased and deceased had no other wife.