ASHA DEVI Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal impugns the award dated 20th April, 1998 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, inClaims Case No. 13/1998, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs. 1, 26,000/ - out of a claim of Rs. 10,12,000/ -. Being aggrieved by the said award the claimants have preferred this appeal on the ground that though in the evidence of PW 1,. wife of the deceased, there is a categorical mention that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/ - per month and there is no dispute over the number of dependents said to be six, the learned tribunal has committed error in assessing the income at the rate of Rs. 35/ - per day. It is also submitted that the number of dependents undisputedly being six, it would not have been possible to run the family and to maintain them with a daily income of Rs. 35/ - per day. The impugned award has also been assailed on the ground that initially learned tribunal calculated the claim amount to be Rs. 3,12,120/ - but without a valid reason it has been reduced to rs. 1,89,000/ -. That apart, it is also submitted that in view of various decisions of this Court so also of Hon'ble the Apex Court, now in place of deduction of 1/3 portion for expenses on himself, a deduction of only 1/4 share as such is permissible.

(2.) ON the other hand, the submissions of the claimants have been countered on the ground that no documentary evidence whatsoever was placed before the learned Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/ - per month and that apart, the dependents like mother and sister could have been dependents on the elder brother of the deceased. On due consideration of rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records, we are of the view that this Misc. appeal deserves consideration mainly on the ground that evidence of PW -1, wife of the deceased, has with stood rigorous cross -examination and there is no reason to disbelieve her specific averment to the effect that the deceased had a minimum earning of Rs. 3000/ - per month. Needless to say that as per statutory requirement, even if a person is not searning, his income is to be assessed as Rs. 15,000/ - per annum. As we find no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW -1, the income of Rs. 3000/ - per month of the deceased is found to be reasonable to which the multiplier of 18 has to be applied because at the time of his death, the deceased was aged 28 years. Thus, in total the amount will come to Rs. 6,48,000/ -. However in view of various decisions of this Court and of the Hon'ble Apex Court namely Thumribai and others v. Kamal Urav and others 2002 ACJ 524, Dilip Deshlehra v. Varsha Gyanwani and others 2002 ACJ 473, Sikandar Kaur and others v. Mukhtyar Singh and others 2002 ACJ 231 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others 1996 ACJ 831, a share of 1/4 is to be deducted for self expensses from this amount, thus after deduction, the compensation would come to Rs. 4, 86,000/ -.

(3.) HOWEVER , as per statutory requirement, an interest of 9% (nine percent) is also to be paid on enhanced amount and therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to pay interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the award of the learned Tribunal.