Shri Badruddin @APPELLANT@Hash Shri Ramchandra

The present batch of appeals emanate from a common judgment and award dated 23.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in five different claim cases emerging from one accident, which had been consolidated

and decided conjointly.

Necessary and relevant facts are being narrated in a nutshell to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find, as to whether, the appellants are

entitled for the relief, as prayed for, in their appeals.Â

On the fateful day of 6th May, 1999, when a jeep bearing registration number RJ-30/P 0298 was plying on National Highway No. 8, a mini truck

bearing registration number GRX â€" 5484 collided with it. As a result of the said collision, four persons, namely Yusuf Mohammed, Mohammed

Yusuf, Jamil Mohammed and Sangram Singh passed away; whereas, Smt. Rehana suffered injuries. The claimants filed five separate claims

averring, inter alia, that the driver of their jeep Yusuf Mohammed was going on the correct side, when at about 3:00 p.m., near Gomti Chauhara,

Lambodi, the offending mini truck being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Ram Chandra running on the right side of the road, in a haste of

over-taking another vehicle, struck the jeep and caused the casualty.Â

After due appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent, while driving and the collision

took place because of his carelessness. As the offending truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company, and there was no violation of

the terms of the policy, the Tribunal held it liable to indemnify the owner of the mini truck, who was vicariously liable, for the headless and headless

driving by its driver.

The appeals in question filed by the claimants are targeted towards the quantum of compensation for which, the appellants have raised scores of

grounds, in the course of hearing.

Broadly and basically, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, for all the appeals has been common: that all the deceased were small

traders-merchants, having no fixed income, for whom production of documentary proof to substantiate their stand regarding the monthly/annual

income, was not possible; the witnesses, being wives of the deceased, had appeared in the witness box and deposed on oath that their husband had

been earning a particular amount;Â the Insurance Company had neither brought in any evidence to falsify the stand of the claimants, nor could they

prove the testimony of such witnesses to be untrustworthy with the help of their cross-examination or otherwise. That being the fact situation, Mr.

Sarupariya contended that there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the testimony of the witnesses and to come to an imaginary figure. He

added that such approach of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced, particularly when no reason or basis for adopting such figure has been given in its

order.

Mr. Sarupariya emphasized that in the circumstances like this, particularly when no contrary evidence was available, it was incumbent upon the

Tribunal to have accepted the version of the claimants. He argued that the present case was a case of “evidence on oath against oathâ€, and there

was neither any reason to doubt or disbelieve the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, nor was the Insurance Company able to prove otherwise.

With a pinch of bewilderment in his arguments, he pointed out that the witnesses, who had deposed on behalf of the Insurance Company had not even

made any assertion that the deceased were earning a sum lesser than what had been affirmed by the claimants. Â

Mr. Sarupariya relied upon the following judgments to lend support to his arguments:-

(i) Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 485; Para 22

“22. Appellant’s claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. But PW-1 widow of the deceased said that her husband’s income was Rs.1,500/- per

month. PW-4 brother of the deceased also supported the same version. No contra evidence has been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is,

therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/-. In calculating the amount of compensation in this case we

lean ourselves to adopt the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Though it was formulated for the purpose of Section

163A of the MV Act, we find it a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation than any other method so far as the present case is

concerned.â€​

(ii) Sri Ramchandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2951; Para 14

“14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning ‘ 4500/- per

month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of ‘ 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during

the relevant period viz. In the yar 2004, was 100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company

was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the

Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of ‘ 3000/- per month. Secondly, the Appellant was

working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other

evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the

claimant. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of

supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to

grounds realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which

may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the

date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between ‘ 100/- to 150/- per day or ‘ 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest

and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from ‘ 4500/- to ‘ 3000/-

per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was ‘ 4500/-.â€​

(iii) Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1052;

First two judgments, namely Smt. Kaushnuma Begum (supra) and Sri Ramchandrappa (supra) were cited by Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, learned

counsel for the appellants, to buttress his submission that in case, the claimants appear in the witness box and assert that the deceased/injured was

earning a particular amount, the Tribunal is expected to believe such version, until and unless the assertion of the claimants is excessive or exorbitant

and any contrary evidence is brought/ produced by the defendants.

The third judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq (supra) was cited by Mr. Sarupariya in support of his contention that

it is almost impossible for the claimants to lead documentary evidence in support of their income, particularly when they are not salaried employees;

and in case of small traders/self-employed persons, it becomes all the more difficult to bring on record any documentary evidence, evincing their

income. In such cases, the Tribunal should arrive at a figure which matches with the economic scenario and living standard of that period. He pointed

out that in the judgment aforesaid, Hon’ble the Supreme Court was considering a claim petition arising out of an accident of August, 2008, which

involved death/injuries of vegetable vendors and cleaners, in which case, for the purpose of arriving at the compensation qua vegetable vendors,

Hon’ble the Supreme Court has determined a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month to be a reasonable figure; whereas, in case of cleaner, Hon’ble the

Supreme Court, has reckoned the prevalent minimum wages as per the notification of the Karnataka Government to be a base for arriving at

approximate monthly income of the deceased/injured.Â

Apart from the determination of income, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme

Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.  Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the

appellants/claimants are entitled for appropriate addition for future prospects, which in all cases should be 40%, as all the deceased/injured were below

40 years of age. He added that in light of the said judgment, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the conventional head, at least

in cases of deaths.

Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent â€" Insurance Company, on the other hand submitted that there cannot be a fixed

formula for arriving at the amount of compensation. The Tribunal is required to assess a just compensation, while taking into account not only the

income of the deceased, but other relevant factors also, such as number of dependents; the inflation index; and the place of residence/work of the

deceased. He submitted that the victims of the subject accident hailed from a small Tehsil, where the standard of living is moderate, the needs of the

family and the scope expenditure is less and so also, the income of the businessmen and particularly a small trader is limited, as compared to the other

big cities. He submitted that in overall fact situation, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any enhancement. In

support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, cited the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case

of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65, more particularly para 31 thereof, which is being

reproduced hereunder:-

“31. Section 168 of the 1988 Act provides the guideline that the amount of compensation shall be awarded by the Claims Tribuynal which appears

to it to be just. The expression, “just†means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a

forensic lottery. Obviously “just compensation†does not mean “perfect or “absolute†compensation. The just compensation principle

requires examination of the particular situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case.â€​

With the aid of the judgment aforesaid, Mr. Johari contended that the Tribunal has applied correct legal principles and standards, while determining the

compensation and no interference is warranted in the present appeals.

He rested his argument by submitting that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitions, viz. 25.10.1999,

which in the present economic scenario is a bit excessive to be affirmed.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pertinent provisions and the judgments cited by the rival counsels at the bar.

The moot questions which have cropped up for consideration of this Court are; as to whether, the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to adhere to the strict principles of evidence and the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to

leading of evidence and further, as to whether, in absence of any cross-examination about the earnings of the deceased/injured and on failure of the

opposite party to bring on record any contrary evidence, the Tribunal is required to accept the version of the claimants as eternal verity ? ORÂ the

Tribunal has a discretion to deviate from such testimony and adopt or arrive at a figure, which is in sync with the prevalent economic scenario, the

nature of occupation of the deceased, living standard of his family and average income of the area.

Though there cannot be a straightjacket formula for arriving at the exact income of the deceased, sans any documentary evidence, such as income tax

returns, books of accounts or salary certificate etc. yet, the Tribunal is required to determined an amount which is fair, reasonable and equitable as per

the established legal principles.Â

In considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be a litmus test for determination of the income of a deceased, particularly in absence of ocular

evidence. The exercise of determination of income of a victim cannot be done, as an investigator in a forensic laboratory. The proceedings before the

Tribunal are summary in nature and the Tribunal is not bound by the strict principles of evidence, while ascertaining the victim’s income; which

process is essentially an estimation, involving reasonable guess work and overall conspectus of the contextual facts. But in the same breath, this Court

hastens to add as a word of caution, that even such discretion or guess work is required to be governed & guided by sound legal principles. The

assessment of the income should be in such a manner that it is neither in excess of the income of a person engaged in the similar occupation, nor

should it be too low, to be accepted. Â

It will not be out of place to reproduce Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being fountain head or repository of the powers of the

Tribunal and procedure to be adopted by it.

â€Section 168- Award of the Claims Tribunal.-(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall,

after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into

the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the award of

compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the

Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of

them, as the case may be:

Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any

person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent

disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.

(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen

days from the date of the award.

(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the

date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.

Section 169-Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.-(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules

that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of

witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed, and

the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation,

choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.â€​

Wading through the judgments cited by the rival counsels, upon perusal of the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and after going through the

other relevant judgments and law enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme court, this Court is of the considered view that the proposition as advanced

by Mr. Sarupariya, that “the claimants have pleaded and deposed that the deceased/victims were earning a particular income and there was no

contrary evidence in this regard, for which, the Tribunal was bound to accept the version of the claimantsâ€, cannot be accepted as a rule of law on

one hand and is unpalatable and untenable on the other.

Going by the strict principles of evidence, what has been argued on behalf of the appellants, at a first flush appears to be attractive but such a

telescopic view of the matter cannot be countenanced, in claim cases, particularly because the determination of compensation is not based on theorem

of arithmetic or formula of physics. The Tribunal or Courts should refrain from accepting the statement of the claimants as a gospel truth. If the

income, as claimed or projected by the claimants is too excessive, to be believed, the Tribunal or Court can deter from accepting the same. If it is

unrealstic and unnatural, then in that case, notwithstanding the fact that their testimony has not been demolished or no contrary evidence has been led

by the owner, driver or the Insurance Company, the Tribunal can reckon a figure, which is realistic and closer to the average man engaged in the

vocation of the concerned victim. Such figure should be compatible to current standards of earning of a similarly situated person, albeit,

considering the geographical, overall social background coupled with economical backdrop of the victims. On the other hand, it should not be too

meagre a figure, with which a family of 4-5 dependents would find it impossible to meet both ends.

It is often seen that the Tribunal adopts the minimum wage payable under the Notification issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages

Act for ascertaining the income of a victim or deceased, completely being oblivious of the nature of occupation/business. It is true, that such criterion

is a reasonable and rational criterion, but the same should better be applied, when the deceased/victims were engaged in labour oriented works, such

as Massion, Helper, Agricultural Labour etc. But these standard rates cannot be applied in case of a small time trader; shop keeper; vegetable vendor

etc., as a thumb rule.

The determination of income in such case is a daunting venture, if not impossible.Â

In Indian social structure, a husband, struggling to win bread for the family is not extrovert enough to divulge his income and liabilities to his other

family members, including his wife; more particularly when he has no fixed income. Income of a small trader, such as vegetable vendor, milk-man, tea

vendor etc. is dependent upon hordes of factors, such as harvest, festival, spending habits of inhabitants and their economic background. A Coolie,

milk-man, vegetable or fruit vendor may have higher income in Metros or bigger cities, whereas a person engaged in the same business in small towns

may not earn even a half of it. At the same time, the expenditure or cost of living,  in different parts of this vast and divergent country is also

different.

The claimants appear in the witness box and make assertion about the income of the victim, without stating anything about the dependency, monthly

expenditure or living standard of their family. There is generally no deposition about the spending habits of the victim, so as to help the Tribunal in

arriving at a figure, which he would have spent on himself. There are scores of factors impacting the assessment and determination of loss of

income or dependency, which the dependents would be visited, when they lose their sole earning member. The exercise to be undertaken by the

Tribunal/Court is an uphill task and no fixed formula or guideline can be laid down for assessment of income and dependency, particularly when the

claimants are not in a position to produce any documentary evidence in support of their assertion and when their claim is solely based upon the oral

statement.

 We cannot lose sight of another vital aspect that the defendants - owner of the offending vehicle or the Insurance Company etc. are also unable to

lead any direct documentary or oral evidence in this regard. They cannot be asked to produce negative evidence. However, they may dismantle

or shatter the case of the claimants by way of appropriate cross-examination, if they wish to negate the assertions of the claimants.Â

In such circumstances, it is required of the Tribunal to give due weightage to the testimony of the claimants, albeit, with corresponding cross-

examination by the defendants.Â

The following words of noted sociologist William Bruce Cameroon aptly describes such situation:-

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.â€​

The Tribunal while deciding a claim case should keep larger perspective and vision, avoiding the conventional telescopic approach, so that a just and

reasonable compensation can be arrived at.Â

Adverting to the present factual matrix, it is noticed that the claimants in each case have asserted that the victim used to earn an income ranging from

Rs.4500/- to Rs.6000/- per month, which deposition has not been negated by the defendants. Neither the owner nor the Insurance Company have

been able to falsify the version of the claimants, by leading cogent evidence.

However, the Tribunal has reckoned a figure of Rs.1500/- to Rs.1800/- per month in all these claim cases. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal has not

given any reason or basis for arriving at such figure. Â

It is an admitted or proven fact that the victims were engaged in some trade or business. Curiously, the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 provides for notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum even for a non-earning victim. Hon’ble the Supreme court has directed the

Central Government, time and again, to revise the Schedule and until such amendment, [Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors.: (2014) 1 SCC

244], has held that the notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum should be adopted. Relevant portion of the said Judgment is being reproduced here

infra:-

“38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation

which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional

income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have

certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age

of the parents, namely, the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident by applying the legal principle laid down in Sarla Verma v.

DTC, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love

and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case and the said

amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award

Rs. 50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be

awarded in favour of the appellants.

The said amount will carry interest @ 9% p,.a. by applying the law laid down in MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., for the reasons that the

Insurance Company has been contesting the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years, if

the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and reasonable compensation to the appellants the same could have been either invested or keptin

the fixed deposit, then the amount could have earned five times more than what is awarded today in this appeal. Therefore, awarding 9% interest on

the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is legally justified.â€​

A perusal of the above judgment reveals that the accident in the above case took place in the year 1992 (on 19.07.1992) and dating back to that

period, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has determined the income of the deceased, who was found helping the claimants in their agriculture

occupation, at a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum.

As against this, the deceased/injured in the present cases were undisputedly involved in small business/trade when the unfortunate incident took place

in May, 1999 and yet the Tribunal has determined the compensation treating monthly income of the victims to be Rs.1500/- to Rs.1800/-. If the

annual income so reckoned by the Tribunal is upheld, it will not only be inequitable, but travesty of justice also, inasmuch as in case of a minor or a

non-earning member, the annual income or notional income of Rs.30000/- is to be adopted, whereas the income of the victims who were admittedly

engaged in trade or vocation have been held to be earning even less than the non-earning victims.

Looking to the overall factual and legal matrix, as discussed above, and keeping pace with the inflation, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was

a bit conservative in assessing the income of the victim in each case; if an appropriate appraisal is made of the evidence adduced, the economical and

social status of the victims vis-a-vis the minimum wages prevalent at that time; and geographical and economic condition of the area; viz. a Tehsil

headquarter.Â

In the year 1999, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker was Rs.1300/- per month. A trader or a self-employed person cannot be believed to

be earning even less than a workman. A self-employed person engaged in Trade applies his capital; business acumen etc. His avocation generates a

regular an uninterrupted influx of income, whereas a casual worker may or may not get the work all the 30 days in a month. Hence, such traders,

entrepreneurs are likely or expected to earn more than a skilled worker. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that estimation of income of a

Trader on the basis of wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act is inappropriate and unsustainable.

In the backdrop of the discussion foregoing, I proceed to decide each case one by one, while taking into account the antecedent and relevant facts and

evidence appertain to determination of the amount of compensation:-

(1) CMA No. 397/2002Â

“Badruddin & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.â€​

This appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 395/1999, which was filed by the claimants seeking compensation for accidental death of Jamil

Mohammed, aged 30 years, who was running a shop of fancy items, locks and keys. Â

With a view to have a better appraisal, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire statement and cross examination of AW-3, Smt.

Habibnur wife of the deceased Jamil

Mohammed, which reads thus:-

^^ejs s ifr dk uke tehy vgen FkkA ftuds efugkj] rkyk dqaph dh nsoxesjs ifr dh nq?kZVuk ds le; 30 lky dh mez FkhA djhcu ikSus nks lky igys ejs s ifr dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks x;hA ejs s ifr dh ykâ€k dks nq?

kZVukLFky ls jktuxj yk;sA jktuxj ls nsoxvU; gekjs lkekftd jhfr fjokt] /kkfeZd vuq""Bku oxSjk djok;sA esjs ifr ds bu lHkh dk;ZØeksa ds djhcu 10 gtkj :i;s O;; gks x;sA esjs lkl&llqj esjs ifr ds

lkFk gh jgrs Fks ,oa vkt Hkh lkFk gh jgrs gSA mudk xqtkjk ejs s ifr gh pykrs FksA ejs s ifr dh nqdku ejs s ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn dksbZ laHkkyus okyk

ugha gksus ls vc can iM+h gS D;ksafd ejs k nsoj NksVk gSA ejs s llqj dh vk;q vf/kd gksus] chekj gksus ls dke ugha gks ikrk gSA esjs llqj dk fnekx

Hkh esjs ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn vlarqfyr jgrk gSA ejs s ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn gekjk iwjk ifjokj dk ekufld larqyu fcxM+ x;k gS ,oa fdlh dke esa eu ugha yxrk

gSA ejs s ifr dh ;kn vkrh gSA esjs ifr esjs llqj ,oa lkl ds lkFk gh jgrs FksA ejs s ifr dekbZ djds lkl&llqj dks gh nsrs FksA gekjs lkekftd fjokt ds vuqlkj ge

yksx lkifjokj ds yksx gesa ejs s ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn esa fo/kok gks x;hA esjh igkM+ leku ftUnxh iM+h gS vkSj ftUnxh cckZn gks x;h gSA iwjh vk;q rd oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk

iM+sxkA eSa ejs s ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls muls izkIr gksus okys lsok] lgkjk] laj{k.k] izse] lkgp;Z ls gesâ€kk&gesâ€kk ds fy;s eg:e gks x;h gwaA esjs

ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls vkfFkZd fLFkfr [kjkc gks x;h gSA gekjh vk; dk dksbZ tfj;k ugha gksus ls vc ?kj pykus esa cM+h eqfâ€dy vk jgh gSA eq>s

ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA gekjs xkS= esa lksjxj gksrk gSA

nq?kZVuk ls lacaf/kr dkxtkr isâ€​k fd;s gSA esjs ifr dh iksLV

ekVZe fjiksVZ iz-&112 gSA

izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-

;g ckr lgh gS fd nqdku ejs h llqjth dh gSA ejs s llqjth ds nks yM+dksa esa ls ,d thfor gSA ftldh vk;q 13&14 lky dh gksxhA ejs s llqjth LoLFk gS ijarq

muds yM+ds ds ejus ds ckn mudk ekuflad larqyu lgh ugha jgrk gSA mudk ewM gksrk gS rks gh dke djrs gS ojuk ugha djrs gSA nqdku dHkh can jgrh

gS dHkh [kqyh jgrh gSA izfrfnu 125&150 :i;s djhcu ykrs FksA eSa iizfrekg dekrs gksaA ;g xyr gS fd Dyse vf/kd ls vf/kd ikus ds fy;s dekbZ T;knk crk;h gksA

izfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ughaiqu% ijh{k.k & fuy**

A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Habibnur, the wife of the deceased Jamil Mohammed shows that she had categorically deposed that her husband

used to earn Rs.4000/- to Rs.4500/per month and that her family including her father-in-law, motherin-law were dependent on the earnings of the

deceased.

The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring to fore any contrary fact which could falsify her stand.Â

Even during their evidence, the Insurance Company has failed to bring any material contrary to the stance of the claimants.

In view of the aforesaid testimony and looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that Devgarh is a Tehsil Headquarter, I feel that it would

be reasonable to reckon the monthly income of the deceased Jamil Mohammed at Rs.3000/per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum.

In light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is recalculated as under:-

 Rs.36,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) : Rs.6,48,000/-

Rs.36,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â : Rs.6,48,000/

(-) one-third deduction                                Â

                               : Rs.2,16,000

Total Amount  Rs.4,32,000/Add 40% future prospects : Rs.1,72,800/

Non-Pecuniary Damages                                    Rs. 75,000/

Total Rs.6,79,800/Less already awarded by the Tribunal                Rs.2,22,000/                 Additional

Amount Payable       Rs.4,57,800/- /

The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.

(2) CMA No. 106/2002 “Ghulam Rasool & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.â€​

This appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 345/1999, which had been filed by the dependents of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf, aged 25 years,

who was a shop keeper.

The statement and cross - examination of AD-1, Rehana wife of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf, which are relevant for the present purpose is

reproduced here infra:-

^^ejs s ifr dk uke ;qlqQ eksgEen FkkA mldh nq?kZVuk ds le; vk;q 25 lky FkhA ;g nq?kZVuk nsoxgqvk FkkA eSa thi esa cSBh gq;h FkhA ge jktleUn ls nsoxgSA Vªd vksojVsd djds vk jgk FkkA gekjh tks thi lgh fnâ€kk esa py jgh Fkh] ds VDdj ekj nhA ;g nq? kZVuk Vªd pkyd dh xyrh ds dkj.k gq;hA

Vªd pkyd Vªd dks rst xfr] ykijokgh ls pyk jgk FkkA mlesa gekjs lkFk tehy] ejs s ifr] vU; vkSj Hkh FksA esjs ifr dh Hkhe esa nqdku FkhA esjs ifr

dh Js’B cht Hk.Mkj dh nqdku Fkh ftldk izek.k&i= iznâ€​kZ&1 gSA

ejs s ifr izfrekg 5&6 gtkj :i;s dek fy;k djrs FksA nqdku fdjk;s dh FkhA vk;â€kk izkFkhZ la-&2 ejs h lklw gSA izkFkhZ la-&1 xqyke jlwy ejs s llqj gSA

esjs tcMksa esa] dwYgksa esa] flj ij pksV yxh FkhA ftldh pksV izfrosnu fjiksVZ izÅ'&2 gSA ,eÅ',yÅ'lhÅ'fjiksVZ izÅ'&3 gSA ejs s dks pksV yxus

ds ckn jktlean ysdj vk;sA fQj esjs dks mn;iqj ys x;sA esjk mn;iqj esa 6 fnuksa rd bZykt pykA fQj esjs dks vgenkckn] iVok uflZax gkse] ys x;sA fQj

mlds ckn esa fdjk;s ds edku esa jghA fnukad 14-7-99 dks okfil nsoxvanj IysVs fcBk;h psgjsa dh ltZjh gq;hA vka[kkas ds uhps IysVsa MkyhA blesa djhcu gekjk 2 yk[k :i;k O;; gks x;kA eSa izkbZosV Ldwy esa itkrh Fkh ,oa ?kj ij flykbZ dk dke djrh Fkh ftlls djhcu 2 gtkj izfrekg dek ysrh FkhA lky Hkj rd esjk bZykt pyk vkSj eq>s vkjke djuk iM+kA

iqfyl dkxtkr isâ€k fd;s gSa ftlesa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izÅ'&4] pkyku izÅ'&5] ipkZ ekSdk iznâ€kZ&6] 133 ,e-oh-,DV dk uksfVl iznâ€kZ&7] ;qlqQ

firk xqyke jlwy] eqlyeku dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ izÅ'&8] bUâ€;ksjsUl Vªd izÅ'&9] vkjÅ'lhÅ' Vªd izÅ'&10 gSA esjs ifr iiVok uflZax gkse] vgenkckn dk fMLpktZ dkMZ izÅ'&11] MkWDVj dh jlhn uÅ'&12 gSA bZykt dh ifpZ;ka izÅ'&13 ls izÅ'&33 rd gSA izÅ'&34 ls

izÅ'&81 rd fcy gSA izÅ'&82 ls izÅ'&87 rd ifpZ;ka gSA izÅ'&88 ls izÅ'&97 rd ,Dljs dh jlhnsa ,oa fcy gSA okgu dh jlhnsa izÅ' 98 ls 108 rd gSA

budh fjiksVZ ¼tkap½ iznâ€kZ&109 gSA ejs s ifr dh nq?kZVuk gksus ls vc dksbZ dekus okyk ugha jgk gSA eq>s esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls

oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk iM+ jgk gSA eq>s ekufld ,oa “kkjhfjd ijsâ€​kkuh gq;h tks thoui;ZUr cuh jgsxhA ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA

izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/kÅ'&thÅ',lÅ' pwaMkor vf/kÅ'

ge ukFk}kjk ls nsoxFksA eSa thi pkyd ds ihNs okyh lhV ij cSBh gq;h FkhA tgka nq?kZVuk gq;h ogka lM+d lh/kh gSA usâ€kuy gkbZos gksus ls lM+d pkSM+h gSA thi tk

jgh Fkh] dks :dokdj ge cSBs FksA ;g xyr gS fd thi okyk rst xfr ls thi dks pyk jgk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd dbZ fVªi djds ds pDdj esa rst pyk jgk

gksA ;g xyr gS fd bl nq?kZVuk esa thi pkyd dh xyrh ls gq;hA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd vksojVsd dj jgk gksA [kkn dh nqdku vc dksbZ pykus okyk ugha

gSA eSa iflykbZ dk dke fcYdqy ugha dj ikrh gwaA eSa flykbZ dk dke ?kj ij gh lh[kh FkhA esjs llqjth igys v/;kid Fks vc lsokfuo`r gks x;s gSA eSa xuh HkkbZ ds

;gka xksn x;h gwaA eSa vc llqj ,oa lklw ds lkFk jg jgh gwaA fHkMUr gksus ds rqjUr ckn eSa csgksâ€k gks x;h FkhA thi ,oa Vªd dk uacj ;kn ugha

gSA bruk esjs dks irk ugha fd Vªd okyk dkSuls okys okgu dks vksojVsd dj jgk FkkA bruk irk gS fd vksojVsd dj jgk FkkA ejs s ifr ihNs nks lhVsa

gksrh gS mlesa esjs lkeus cSBs gq;s FksA

izfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha-

iqu% ijh{k.k & fuy**

A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Rehana, the wife of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf Mohammed shows that she has

asserted that her husband, carrying on the business of selling Seeds in the name and style of “Shreshtha Beej Bhandar†in Bheem used to earn

Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

Though said witness was cross-examined by the counsel for Insurance Company, but nothing fruitful could be retrieved to doubt her testimony. Even

during its evidence, the Insurance Company failed to bring any material contrary to the stance of the claimants.

In view of the aforesaid testimony and looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that a person engaged in the business of purchase and sell

of seeds cannot be presumed to be earning Rs.1800/- per month only, as the business of seed not only requires license but specialised knowledge.

Hence, it would be appropriate to determine the monthly income of the deceased Mohammed Yusuf at Rs.3500/- or Rs. 42,000/- per annum.

In light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is recalculated as under:-

Rs.36,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â : Rs.6,48,000/

(-) one-third deduction                                Â

                               : Rs.2,16,000

Total Amount  Rs.4,32,000/Add 40% future prospects : Rs.1,72,800/

Non-Pecuniary Damages                                    Rs. 75,000/

Total Rs.6,79,800/Less already awarded by the Tribunal                Rs.2,22,000/                 Additional

Amount Payable       Rs.4,57,800/- /

The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.

(3) CMA No. 396/2002Â

“Smt. Rehana Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.â€​

The present appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 357/1999, which was filed by Smt. Rehana and related to the injuries suffered by her in the

aforesaid accident.Â

A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,275/-, which includes the amount spent by her for

medicines and treatment, compensation for the injuries suffered by her and mental agony arising therefrom and loss of earning etc.

It is to be noticed that Rehana, wife of the deceased also got injured in the said accident and undergone treatment firstly at

Udaipur and then at Ahmedabad. While deciding the claim petition filed by her, for the injuries she had sustained, a sum of Rs. 50,225/- spent on her

treatment at Ahmedabad has been awarded by the Tribunal, while also awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of her earning during the treatment

besides awarding an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the Taxi fare to Ahmedabad.

A reading of the said award reveals the financial status of the family, who took the injured in a Taxi and spent a huge amount of Rs.50,225/- for her

treatment, duly supported by the documentary evidence.

Apparently there is no nexus of the decision of claim case relating to Rehana vis-a-vis the present case filed for loss of earning of Mohd. Yusuf, her

husband. But the same is definitely a pointer to the spending capacity and financial status of the family as expenditure of Rs.50,000/- in the year 1999

was not a small thing by any standards. Hence, the adjudication of the claim case of Rehana also becomes relevant and it has a necessary bearing

even in the present case.Â

Having gone through the evidence available, this Court feels that the amount awarded to her, is just and proper looking to the period in which the

claimant had suffered injuries and mental agony arising therefrom. The appeal fails and is thus dismissed.

(4) CMA No. 398/2002Â

“Smt. Sajida & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.â€​

This appeal emanate from a Claim Case No. 344/1999, which was filed by the claimants, claiming compensation for fatal accident of Yusuf

Mohammed, aged 28 years, the driver of the jeep, which was involved in the fateful accident.Â

This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire statement and cross - examination of AD-4, Smt. Sajida wife of the deceased Yusuf

Mohammed, which reads thus:-

^^eSass ifr dk ,DlhMsaV 6 ebZ] 99 dks nsoxFkhA esjs ifr pkyd Fks vkSj xkM+h pykrs FksA os izfrekg 5000@& :i;s dekrs FksA muds firk dk uke Qd:nhu mQZ ulhj eksgEen gSA iznâ€kZ la-&2

gkftjk ejs h lklw gSA izkFkhZ la- 3 ejs k iq= gS ftldk uke tqusn vkye “ks[k gSA bl cPps dk tUe 2 vDVwcj]99 dks gqvk FkkA ftldk izek.k&i=

iznâ€​kZ&13 gSA iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ iznâ€​kZ & 114 gSA

iqfyl dkxtkr vU; i=kofy;ksa esa iznfâ€kZr gks pqds gSA esjk cPpk tqusn iSnk gqvk tks ,e-th- vLirky HkhyokM+k esa iSnk gqvk tks iznâ€kZ&115 gSA

ejs s ifr ds ejus ds vkn gekjs dekus okyk dksbZ ugha gSA eSa] ejs h lklw] ejs k cPpk lkFk jgrs gSA ?kj dke eqfâ€dy ls py ik jgk gSA muds ejus ds ckn

eSa fcYdqy cslgkjk gks x;h gwaA thuk nwHkj gks x;k gSA tc Dyse isâ€k fd;k ml le; eSa xHkZorh FkhA ;g eSaus vius odhy lkgc dks ugha crk;kA

buds Qkfr;k oxSjk esa djhcu 50000@& :i;s O;; gks x;sA eq>s ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k tk;sA

izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-

esjss ifr thi pykrs FksA mudh thi pykus dk ykblsal ;gka isâ€k ugha fd;k gSA ejs s ifr nwljksa dh thi pykrs FksA ejs s ifr thi tgka HkkM+k feyrk ogka

pykrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd thi pkyd dks 1500@& :i;s izfrekg gh feyrs gksA osru izek.k&i= isâ€k ugha fd;k gSA esjs ifr vk;dj ugha nsrs FksA ;g xyr gS

fd esjs ifr 1500@& :i;s ejs s dks nsrs gks vkSj ckdh vius ikl j[krs gksA dkSulh thi pykrs] uacj ;kn ugha gSA fnynkj lkgc dh pykrs FksA fnynkj lkgc ds

;gka gh dke djrs FksA ;g xyr gS fd cizfr ijh{kk & ekfyd dh vkjs ls & dksbZ mi- ugha

A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Sajida, the wife of the deceased Yusuf Mohammed shows that she had clearly stated that her husband, Yusuf

Mohammed aged 25 years, was a driver by profession and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month.

The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring forth any contrary fact. Even during their evidence, the

Insurance Company had failed to bring any evidence contrary to the stance of the claimants.

Looking to the overall fact situation, including the fact that the deceased was a driver, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to determine the

monthly income of the deceased Yusuf Mohammed at Rs.3500/- per month or Rs.42,000/- per annum.Â

In light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is recalculated as under:-

Rs.36,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â : Rs.6,48,000/

(-) one-third deduction                                               Â

 : Rs.2,16,000/-

 Total Amount  Rs.4,32,000/Add 40% future prospects : Rs.1,72,800/-

Non-Pecuniary Damages                                                :

Rs. 75,000/-

Total Rs.6,79,800/Less already awarded by the Tribunal :Rs.2,22,000/-                Â

Additional Amount Payable                                        :Rs.4,57,800/-

The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.

(5) CMA No. 423/2002Â

“Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.â€​

The present appeal arises out of the Claim Case No. 396/1999, which was filed by Himmat Singh, father of the deceased Sangram Singh, aged 23

years. Â

To decide the present appeal, it will not be out of place to reproduce the statement and cross - examination of AD-2, Smt.

Kamla wife of the deceased Sangram Singh, which reads thus:-

^^vkt ls djhcu ikSus nks lky igys dh ckr gSA esjs ifr laxzkeflag dh vk;q e`R;q ds le; 23 lky Fkh ftudh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks x;hA esjs ifr nq?kZVuk

ls igys tujy LVksj ij ukSdjh djrs FksA og izfrekg FksA ?kj dk [kpkZ esjk ifr gh pykrk

FkkA ?kj dk [kpkZ esjs lkl&llqj] esjs cPps] NksVs&NksVs nsoj Fks] dk [kpkZ

esjk ifr pykrk FkkA esjs llqj dh vk;q & 47 lky dh ftuls dksbZ dke ugha gks ikrk gSA nq?kZVuk ds ckn esjk llqj dk LokLF; cgqr T;knk [kjkc gksus yx

x;k gSA esjs ifr ls ,d cPph iSnk gq;h ftldk uke fleju gS nq?kZVuk ds le; Mse`R;q gks x;hA mn;iqj esa esjs ifr dk bZykt pyk FkkA tgka 5&6 gtkj :i;s O;; gks x;sA muds ejus ds ckn ykâ€k dks gekjs xkao yk;sA ftldk thi dk fdjk;k

,d gtkj :i;k fn;k FkkA ?kj ykdj nkg&laLdkj fd;k x;k A lkjk fØ;kdeZ fd;kA nku&iq.; fd;kA mudh vfLFk;ka folftZr djus xaxkth ys x;sA esjs ifr dh e`R;q

ds ckn ifjokjtu o iwjk lekt gels feyus vk;kA ftuds fy;s gesa Hkkstu oxSjk dh O;oLFkk djuh iM+hA gekjs dqy feykdj 50&60 gtkj :i;k O;; gks x;kA esjk

ifr Ms;jh o [ksrh ls nks gtkj :i;s djhcu izfrekg vyx ls dek ysrs FksA lkjk ?kj dk [kpkZ os gh pykrs FksA esjs ifr dh e`R;q gks tkus ls gekjs lkjs ifjokj dh

vkenuh dk lgkjk pyk x;kA esjh cPph Hkh vukFk gks x;hA eSa Hkh thou Hkj ds fy;s fo/kok gks x;hA esjs lkl&llqj dk cqesjs ifr dh e`R;q ls mlls izkIr gksus ls izse] lsok] lgkjk] laj{k.k] lkgp;Z ls oafpr gks x;hA gekjs jktiwr lekt esa L=h nwljk ukrk Hkh ugha dj ldrh gSA

eq>s iwjk oS/kO; thou O;rhr djuk iM+sxkA eq>s ekufld ihM+k cuh jgrh gSA esjs ifr dh ;kn vkus ls ekufld larqyu fcxM+ tkrk gSA

eSaus iqfyl dkxtkr isâ€k fd;s gSA esjs ifr dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ iz&110 gSA pksV izfrosnu izi= iz-&111 gSA eq>s ekfQd Dyse gtkZuk fnyk;k

tk;sA

izfr ijh{kk & chek daiuh vf/k-

esjs ifr ckjgoha rd igksA ;g xyr gS fd eSaus esjs ifr dh vkenuh vf/kd Dyse ikus ds fy;s vf/kd crk;h gksA [ksrh vkt Hkh gekjs gSA ;g xyr gS fd esjs llqj vkt Hkh

[ksrh&ckM+h djrs gSA

izfr ijh{kk& ekfyd dh vksj ls & dksbZ mi- ugha

iqu% ijh{k.k & fuy**

A perusal of the testimony of Smt. Kamla, wife of the deceased Sangram Singh shows that she had stated that her husband, Sangram Singh aged 23

years, used to serve in a General Store and had been drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- per month. It has also been deposed by her that

apart from the aforesaid employment, he used to sell milk and also used to help the family occupation of agriculture; and in all, he used to earn

Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month. Se had deposed that the entire family was dependent upon his income.Â

The said witness was cross-examined by the Insurance Company but they cold not bring to fore any contrary fact which could falsify her

testimony. Even during their witness, the Insurance Company failed to bring any evidence which would raise a doubt about the testimony of the

claimants.

Having regard to the overall fact situation, including the fact that Devgarh is a Tehsil Headquarter, this Court feels that it would be reasonable to

reckon the monthly income of the deceased Sangram Singh at Rs.3500/- per month or Rs.42,000/- per annum. Looking to the number of his

dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses is also reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th.

In light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is recalculated as under:-

Rs.42,000/- per annum x 18 (multiplier) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â : Rs.7,56,000/

(-) one-third deduction                                                :

Rs.2,52,000/_

Total Amount Rs. 5,04,000/Add 40% future prospects  : Rs. 2,01,600/.

Non-Pecuniary Damages                                                :

Rs. 75,000/

Total Rs.7,80,600/- Less already awarded by the Tribunal : Rs.2,77,200/Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Additional Amount Payable                                         Â

 :Rs.5,03,400/-

The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the payment is made.

Accordingly, Appeal No. 397/2002 (Badruddin & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.), Appeal No. 106/2002 (Ghulam Rasool & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra

& Ors.), Appeal No. 398/2002 (Smt. Sajida & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.), Appeal No. 423/2002 (Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramchandra

& Ors.) are allowed, as indicated above; whereas Appeal No.396/2002 (Smt. Rehana Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.) is dismissed.