BUDHNI ORAON Vs. UMESH KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Lal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

(2.) This appeal by the claimants has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 133 of 1990. It appears that on the relevant date of accident the deceased was returning from bazar at about 4 p.m. and when he reached near Hutar More near village Bijupara, all of a sudden a mini bus bearing registration No. BR 14 (L) 8925 came and dashed against the deceased who instantaneously died. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and after hearing the parties assessed the compensation at Rs. 60,000 and passed the award accordingly.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Lal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in assessing compensation is contrary to law inasmuch as 50 per cent of the income of the deceased could not have been deducted in calculating the monthly dependency. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal incorrectly took the annual dependency at Rs. 6,000 and multiplied the same by 10 years of purchase which is against the principles of assessment. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company has drawn my attention to para 6 of the judgment and submitted that the widow of the deceased herself said in her evidence that her husband was a labourer and he was earning Rs. 25 per day. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the deceased was earning Rs. 750 per month and the Tribunal has rightly taken Rs. 500 as the monthly dependency. Even if the submission of Mr. Sahani is accepted the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on a lower side inasmuch as the annual dependency comes to Rs. 6,000 and the same must be multiplied by 18 years of purchase for the reasons that the deceased was a young man aged about 35 years and he died leaving behind five children. If we multiply the annual dependency of Rs. 6,000 by 18 years of purchase it comes to Rs. 1,08,000 which should be just and reasonable compensation. So far as award of interest is concerned, I do not find any reason to disturb the award of interest.