The High Court dismissed an appeal by the wife of a deceased against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 1,90,000. Finding no documentary proof of income, the Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment based on notional income and rejected the claim for enhanced compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL IN NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No.519 of 2004
Smt. Tahira Khatoon W/o Late Rahil Ahmad @Ruhel Ahmad, R/o at present Moh. Alli Khan, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar
...Appellants
Vs
...Respondents
Dated: July 4, 2006
Sri Dharamveer, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants Sri B.C. Pandey and Sri T.A. Khan, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondents
Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment and award 14.06.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge/FTC Kashipur (hereinafter will be referred to as the Tribunal) in MACT Case No.175 of 2000, for enhancement of compensation whereby the learned District Judge has awarded a sum Rs.1,90,000/as compensation in favour of the claimant/appellant.
backside due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he deceased died at Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut on 1.8.2002 during the treatment. The first information report of the said incident was lodged at P.S. Sherkot, Distt. Bijnaur by the conductor of the said bus and the death certificate of the deceased was given by Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut. It was alleged that the sons and daughters of the deceased were studying in difference schools and there is no other source of income of the claimant after the death of the deceased. It was also alleged that the claimants have received financial and mental shock due to the said accident. The claimants who are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased filed claim petition for compensation against the opposite parties.
liability of the Opp. No.1 is occurred, the liability is of National Insurance Co. because the Truck was insured with the said insurance company. The opp. Party was having the valid driving licence and the truck was having all the valid documents at the time of accident. It was also alleged that the claimants have prayed for exorbitant amount, hence the claim petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
7.7.2000 at 5:00 P.M. due to the negligent driving of the driver of the said Bus. It was alleged that even on 7.7.2000 and before that date, all the papers of the Bus No.URN-9058 were valid and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also alleged that the claimants have prayed for exorbitant amount, hence the claim petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
which the passenger sitting in the bus namely Rahil alias Ruhel died?
2. Whether the Bus No.URN-9058 which was already standing at the spot, had also some contribution in the accident, if so then to which extent?
3. Whether Truck No.UP.25-7112 was having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so then its effect?
4. To what extent that claimants were entitled for compensation and from which opposite party?
statement of the wife, the deceased was doing the work of daily needs items, however no documentary proof was filed by her in support of her case. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that when he was doing the business of daily needs, there must be some document. The Tribunal has also recorded the finding that when the deceased was told about 40 years of age, then there must be some proof that he was doing any business but no document was filed which could establish that the deceased was working in the shop of daily needs ( Parchoon ) and he was earning Rs.4,000-5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that there was no other proof in support of her case. The report of insurance expert was submitted as Paper No.65-Ga, in which the statement of Smt. Tahira Khatoon was also recorded in which she submitted that her husband was doing clothing business. Hence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was uncertainty about the work of the deceased, hence the Tribunal disbelieved the statement of the wife that the deceased was carrying business and was earning Rs.4,00-5,000/per month. The wife of the deceased submitted that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of the accident, however in her application, she shown her age to be 37 years and to be mother of 7 children and when her statement was taken on 2.3.2001, she told her age 35 years. However, in the year 2000, when he submitted her application she was 37 years of age and in the year 2002, she must be 39 years of age, however she told her age to be 35 years so that it could be said that her husband was 40 years of age at the time of accident and there is no other documentary proof, hence the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased must be 45-50 years of age. The Tribunal has also rightly recorded the finding that there was no proof of the business of the deceased and what he
was earning, this was also could not be ascertained. Hence, the Tribunal held the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- i.e. notional income and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, it came out to be Rs.10,000/- annually. The Tribunal in its judgment in this regard has recorded a finding that deceased was 45-50 years of age and the dependents of the deceased were her wife and her 7 children and out of them 2 children have become adults and others five were still minors, therefore, in that situation, the Tribunal has rightly held that the multiplier of 13 would be appropriate. The wife of the deceased also submitted that after the accident, the deceased was taken to hospital where after 3-4 days he was died and it was submitted that a sum of Rs.2-3 lacs were spent during the treatment, however the Tribunal has recorded a finding in this regard that there was no documentary proof. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts of the case awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/towards medical treatment, The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of end of married life was also awarded. Therefore, in total a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was awarded to the claimant/appellant alongwith 9% interest per annum from Opp. Party Nos.2 and 4.
just and proper and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment impugned.
(B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)
Rajeev Dang
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper requiring enhancement.
Whether the appellant proved any documentary evidence to establish the income of the deceased for compensation purposes.
Smt. Tahira Khatoon
Balvinder Singh
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Gudmala Jain
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
P.C. Verma
B.S. Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
