REEMA DEVI @ KIRAN DEVI Vs. SULTAN AHMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants who have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded in Claim Case No. 148/03 in which the judgment and award was passed by the 5th District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, MVACT, Hazaribagh un- der Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for the death of Sunil Kumar 'Pretam' in a motor vehicle accident.

(2.) Enhancement has been claimed mainly on the ground that it was the definite case of the claimants that the deceased had a betel shop and at the relevant time of accident he was transacting his business from his shop when the offending vehicle rammed into the shop causing fatal injury. It is further submitted that all the witnesses on the point of income C.W.1-Krishna Sharma, C.W.2-Jamuna Sao, C.W.3-Abhishek Pankaj, C.W.4-Reema Devi @ Kiran Devi have consistently stated that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.5000.00 from the shop. The income as deposed by the witnesses has not been accepted and instead the notional income of Rs.2000.00 per month has been considered by the learned Tribunal without assigning any specific reason for not accepting the monthly income as deposed by the witnesses. It is also stated that the income as stated by the witnesses is not extravagant and not exaggerated. The compensation has not been awarded under the head of future prospect. Reliance has been placed on National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others {(2017) 16 SCC 680} for award of compensation under the head of future prospect. Lastly, it has been submitted that under the conventional head also the compensation amount has not been allowed and the interest is also 6% with effect from the date when the last witness was discharged.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the finding of fact recorded on the point of income of the deceased cannot be disturbed only on bald statement of the witnesses deposed during their examination in view of the fact that there was no documentary evidence in support of their income. Learned Tribunal accepted the notional income in the absence of any cogent evidence on income and it did not commit any error by doing so. Further, it is submitted that the income is to be seen as per the contemporary standards of time and when the accident took place Rs.2000.00 was not a meagre earning.