NAUGAPU CHINSYA Vs. BHAGABAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an award by the Third Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Puri in respect of an accident in which the deceased was a lady of thirtyfive years of whom appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the husband and the son. The deceased was a vegetable seller. The vehicle causing the accident was a tractor with a trailer. The accident occurred while the deceased was selling vegetables at a place called 'Musi Sahu Chhak, Puri (at Station Bazar, Puri). The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 91,000/ - as compensation with the break -up of Rs. 75,000/ - for loss of dependency, Rs. 5.000/ - for the loss of happy family life, Rs. 10,000/ - for loss of company and personal love, wife's services and care towards son and Rs. 1,000/ - towards funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal while finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, awarded a compensation of 12,096/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application, i.e. 3 -8 -82 and directed that failure to pay shall entail interest at the rate of 9%. In awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 240/ - per month, of which she was spending Rs. 150/ - on herself and was contributing Rs. 90/ - towards the income of the family. The longevity of the deceased was taken to be thirty years more. With the loss of annual dependency calculated at Rs. 1,080/ the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 14 determining the compensation at Rs. 15.120/ - and deducted therefrom 20% towards uncertainties of life reaching the net figure payable as Rs. 12,096/ -.

(2.) MR . B.P. Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, urges that the determination of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 240/ - per month was unwarranted and based on pure conjecture and surmises without taking into consideration the evidence on record as well as a wrong reading of it; the application of 14 as multiplier was erroneous, and that a deduction of 20% for uncertainties of life even after resorting to multiplier system is illegal.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has rejected the case of the appellants as to the income of the deceased being Rs. 600/ -, or as developed in evidence, as Rs. 20/ - to Rs. 25/ - per day on the ground that PW 1 had no personal knowledge as to from where his mother got the money to start the business and he was not helping the mother in the business, that PWs 2 and 3 are relations of the deceased, and hence the evidence of all the three witnesses on the point was not acceptable. The finding that PW 3 was a relation of the deceased merely because he was addressing her as 'Mausi' is wholly unwarranted. 'Mausi' is a common form of address to elder ladies and from it no conclusion can be drawn that one who so addresses is a relation. PW 3 appears to be an independent witness whose cross -examination was declined. It was his statement that the deceased was selling vegetables worth Rs. 200/ - to Rs. 250/ - per day and he was purchasing vegetables worth about Rs. 50/ - from her every day for re -sale and that he was making a profit of Rs. 7/ - to 8/ - from such re -sale. Since the evidence is unchallenged and no evidence has also been led by the respondents rebutting such statements, it can serve the basis of computation of the income of the deceased. Making some concession for possible exaggeration by PW 3, it can be said that since the deceased was selling vegetables to others who were reselling the same, she must have been selling vegetables at least worth about Rs. 100/ - a day. The evidence of PW 3 shows that he was getting a profit of Rs. 7/ - to Rs. 8/ -per day out of vegetables worth Rs. 50/ - which thus shows the percentage of profit at 14 to 16. Taking a minimum of 14% as profit, it can be said that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 1'/ - per day, totalling to a sum of Rs. 420/ - per month, of which, admittedly, as the evidence of PW 2 discloses, she was spending Rs. 150/ - on herself and hence her monthly contribution to the family would have been Rs. 270/ -. At such rate, the loss of annual dependency would be Rs. 3,240/ -.