RSRTC AND ANR. Vs. JAGDISH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against one judgment and award passed by MACT. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.5.1994 at about 10.100 AM near Gram Sarola Khurd, when the bus of RSRTC No. RJ 14 -1968 was coming from Khanpur side, met with an accident with Jeep No. RJ -20C -0346, due to which Chander Prakash S/o Jagdish died, who was sitting in the bus.

(2.) THEREAFTER FIR was lodged, claim petition was filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 5,01,000/ - in favour of claimants and against the non claimants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the RSRTC has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in not considering the objections raised by the RSRTC properly. The impugned award is legally not sustainable in the eye of law because from the bare reading of the award, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion regarding the loss of income due to death of the deceased Chander Prakash as the claimants in their claim petition had stated that the deceased was able to earn about Rs. 4000/ - per month, whereas in the statement of AW -1 Jagdish he stated that Chander Prakash was doing the work of labour and was earning Rs. 60 -47 per day and further by selling milk, was earning Rs. 140/ - per day and thus, the income from selling milk as well as labour if taken, then the every day income of the deceased comes to Rs. 200 -210 per day, which amounts to Rs. 6300/ - per month which are both contradictory to each other and apart from this, there was no proof of the income of the deceased and yet the learned Tribunal had taken a presumption that the average monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4000/ - per month. It is further stated that the claimants had further stated that the deceased was also studying at the same time and this is far from believable that a person is studying, selling milk and working as labour also. Hence, the annual income assessed of the deceased as Rs. 48000/ - was without any basis and very much on the excessive side. It is further relevant to point out here that the deceased is stated to be about 20 years old at the time of the accident, whereas the age of the deceased was shown to be 17 years in the post mortem report and thus, there was again contradiction regarding the age of the deceased and in such circumstances, the amount of compensation granted was very much on the higher side. The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation taking minimum of the labour and at the most, the presumption should have been drawn for Rs. 1500/ - per month when there was no other evidence to support the oral testimony of the claimants. Hence, the award is liable to be quashed and set -aside.