SUBHASH CHAND Vs. SATYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals arise out of the same accident that resulted in death of a scooterist. The appeal in FAO No.2617 of 1996 is for enhancement of compensation for the death of the scooterist, aged 29 years, where the claimants were widow, two minor children and mother. The Court had assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,15,200/-. The owner is in appeal in FAO No.2412 of 1996 on a plea that the award is wrongly passed against the owner and the liability must have been fastened only on the insurer. The contention was that the accident was a result of deceased himself ramming into a stationary tractor and there was no proof of negligence. Consequently, there is no cause of action for prosecuting the claim. In any event, the driver had a valid driving licence and the Tribunal was in error in relying on an evidence that the endorsement of licence was made subsequent to the accident.

(2.) The accident had taken place on 10.05.1995. The averment in the petition was that the claimant was going on the scooter on GT Road and when he reached in the area of village Teora near Teora on the GT Road, the respondent No.1 who was driving the tractor trolley rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn and violating all the traffic rules caused the accident. In evidence, PW2 had narrated that he saw the deceased overtaking him in his scooter, while he himself was riding a cycle.

(3.) As regards the claims, the contention that the deceased was himself running a trading company called DK Trading Company, apart from the shop where he was working as a Commission Agent. The claimants produced telephone bills that showed a bi-monthly billing of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000/- for two consecutive billing periods. This was to lend support for a claimant's plea that he was a trader and he was earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month. The Tribunal, while considering this evidence, reasoned that he was not an income tax assessee. He had also no saving bank account or any amount with the post office. The telephone bills showed that the bills had been raised in his name. The telephone bills could not prove the nature of business activity that he had. The Tribunal, therefore, took the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and assessed the contribution to the family at Rs. 600/- per month. I am of the view that the Tribunal's assessment of income was erroneous. If the wife was giving evidence that her husband was doing his own business as DK Trading Company and was also giving a statement that her husband was a Commission Agent having a shop and if her evidence must be discounted at all, it could be only about her assessment that her husband was earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month. This is on account of the fact that he was not an income tax assessee. There was also evidence that he had shares worth about Rs. 50,000/- and he had investment in some private Company called Golden Forest Company. The counsel for the Insurance Company points out that even the scooter that he was driving was not his own and it had been purchased in the name of his father by borrowing from a bank. He was supporting a family of widow, minor children and mother. I am prepared to assume that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In the the decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others Versus Madan Mohan and others, decided on 02.04.2013, the question raised was whether a determination of the multiplicand under 1988 Act provided for criterion particularly as regards determination of future prospects.