RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. MOHD. MEHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellants for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,35,000 awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, vide its award 12th January, 2006, in MAC Case No. 560/2005 (476/99) (138/90), to claimants for death of Mitthu Lal, who was 20 years of age at relevant point of time, in an accident took place on 1st December, 1989 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus R.N.P. 54 by respondent driver. The offending bus was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Contention of learned Counsel for appellants is that deceased was a mason and apart from that he also used to work on agriculture field on part time basis. His monthly income was proved to be in between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 3,000 but learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income only at Rs. 1,000 and, out of that, deducted 50% for his own expenses on premise that deceased was unmarried. It is argued that deduction of 50% should not be mechanically made. Even otherwise, learned Counsel argued that appellants ought to have been granted benefit of future prospects. In this connection, reliance has been placed on judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2012 AIR(SC) 2185 It is argued that in aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has held that it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income towards further prospects, over a period of time and if he/ she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal therefore has erred in law in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1000 and accepting the contribution to the family only at Rs. 500 and on that basis making computation of compensation.

(2.) Learned Counsel alternatively argued that this Court in its judgment dated 2nd November, 2011 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 870/2001, Smt. Nana Devi and Others v. Gurumel Singh and Others, considered judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Syed Ibrahim and Others and Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Others, as well as other reasoned judgments of the Supreme Court and that of, this Court, held that award of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 is just and proper for death of a child of more than 10 years but not more than 15 years of age. Learned Counsel submits that when for death of a child compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 is awarded, then at-least learned Tribunal ought to have awarded this much of amount to claimants in present case for death of an unmarried 20 years old boy. The award of Rs. 1,35,000 is highly unjust being towards lower side.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that deceased was unmarried and therefore 50% has rightly been deducted. Claimants in their claim application have stated the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 1,150 and his age to be 20 years. Learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of present case rightly accepted monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1,000 and accordingly awarded compensation. Mere assertion of claimants in their statements that deceased was earning in between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 3,000 per month, could not be accepted in absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary. It is argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi , cannot be applied to the facts of present case.