RANJAN NARZARY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2. There is no representation for the respondent No. 3 & 4 despite receipt of the notice from this Court. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2011 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kokrajhar in MAC Case No. 02/2011.

(2.) The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident occurred on 18.01.2010 causing death of one Siman Narzary @ Chiman Narzary who was returning home by riding a bicycle along the National Highway 31(C) and the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/D-8093 (Bus) having been driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down him causing fatal injuries, succumbing to which he died and the insurance cover of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1 are not in dispute in the appeal and as such those findings stand affirmed. In view of this a further appraisals is avoided.

(3.) The appellant called in question the assessment of the Tribunal by awarding Rs. 7,000/- for death of his father namely Siman Narzary @ Chiman Narzary in the said road traffic accident. From the evidence as led by the appellant, it appears that deceased was a cultivator and he was having income of Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month whereas the claimant was about 30 years of age at the time of deposing before the Tribunal as the PW-1. He deposed in the Tribunal that his father died at 52 years of age. The appellant's oral testimony was corroborated by one Ramani Kanta Mushahary as the PW-2 who stated that he witnessed the accident which entirely occurred for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further stated that deceased was a cultivator and businessman and his monthly income was about Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Another Sri Rohit Kr. Koch, who deposed in the Tribunal as the PW-3 also claimed to have witness the occurrence and stated that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle and the deceased died immediately thereafter, succumbing to the injuries. He also stated that the deceased was a cultivator and businessman. Even though the appellant claimed that the deceased was the only earning member of their family but he did not elaborate regarding his own profession or did not state that how he was dependant on the father. The scarcity of details as regards whether the deceased had the cultivable land and what kind of business the deceased was involved in. This Court finds it very difficult to come to a definite inference based on evidence. Moreover, it is not expected of a young person aged about 30 years that he was only depending on the income of his father and without helping him in the cultivation or the business.