MAHESWAR DAS Vs. ARUN KUMAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased questioning the correctness of the judgment and award 20.12.2000 passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge-cum-Ist M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 509 of 1998 awarding compensation at Rs. 1,10,000/- disbelieving the evidence adduced by the appellants that while their deceased son was doing business, his monthly income was at Rs. 11,000/-, urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) Dr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the appellants placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kumud Khosla and others, 1995 ACJ 107, has claimed for enhancement of compensation by Rs. 3,40,000/-. Dr. Mohanty has attacked the impugned award on another ground that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded the claim made by the appellants though they have adduced documentary evidence by examining two witnesses. P.W.1 is the father who has stated that the deceased son was studying +3 in Bhadrak College and he had his own business (Tussar and Silk). His average income was Rs. 11,000/- per month. His monthly contribution to the family was Rs. 8,000/-. The said evidence has remained unchallenged though he was cross-examined before the Tribunal. P.W.2, the Branch Manager of the Orissa State Tussar and Silk Cooperative Society has stated that the deceased was a regular customer from their sale depot at Gopalpur. He has further stated that the annual turn over of the deceased was Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has produced the cash memos/receipts issued by the society in respect of the purchase from the said society. The said witness in cross-examination has clarified that the take over of the sale from the depot of the Co-operative Society was more than Rs. 50,00,000/- per year during 1996, 1997 and 1998. In his crossexamination, he has stated that the monthly transaction of the deceased would be Rs. 10,00,000/-.The said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal to determine just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, Dr. Mohanty, learned senior counsel pleaded that it is a fit case for enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment.

(3.) Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned judgment awarding just and reasonable compensation, inter alia, contending that as the Tribunal which is the fact finding authority, on proper appreciation of the facts and the legal evidence available on record and recording valid and cogent reasons, has rightly rejected the claim made by the appellants that their son was doing businesss, the same can not be said to be erroneous or error in law. He further submitted that the case pleaded by the appellants that their son was doing business, has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by it holding that he was a student as the claimant-parents were not able to prove the income of their deceased son for determination of their loss of dependency on him. Therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the reliance placed by the claimants upon the decision of the Delhi High Court has no application to the fact situation of the present case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.