MUKTI Vs. HAPPU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE two appeals are directed against the award of the Tribunal dated 24. 9. 1999 passed by M. A. C. T. , Hindaun City. While Appeal no. 1594/99 has been filed by the claimant, the appeal no. 494/2000 has been filed by the insurance company. The claimant appellant has questioned the correctness of the quantum of compensation on the ground that even though it was proved by Ex. 8 that the deceased himself was having the agriculture land of eight and a half bigha and that he was earning a sum of Rs. 2500- 3000 per month, yet the Tribunal did not accept that proof and computed the compensation on estimated notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and out of that also 50% of the amount was deducted which according to the Tribunal, the deceased would have spent on himself. It was argued that when Smt. Mukti PW-1 widow of the deceased has stated that her husband was earning Rs. 80-90 per day, there was no basis for the Tribunal to assume that the appellant was having only notional income. Learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Kamlesh & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.-2006 R. A. R. 137 (Raj.) = (RLW 2005 (3) Raj. 1654), Naviya & Ors. vs. UII Company & Ors.-2008 WLC (Raj.) 64 and argued that this Court in the aforesaid two cases has taken the view that when computation of compensation is made on the basis of notional yearly income of Rs. 15,000, deduction of 1/3rd personal expenses out of the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- should not be made. In the present case, the Tribunal has made such deduction by 50% which is wholly unjustified.

(3.) IN the present case, however, the onus was on the insurance company to prove that the driving licence produced by the owner was fake and when existence of driving licence was not denied and no evidence to this effect was produced and even the cost of Commissioner not deposited, that liberty on the basis of mere non-appearance of the owner in the witness box in the facts of the present case, cannot be granted, particularly when no such inference has in this case been drawn by the Tribunal.