Smt. Kareemunnisa Begum and Others vs V. Jogaiah (Minor rep. by V. Jaggaiah) and Another

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—The fact that the deceased died in an accident on account of the injuries received by him is not in dispute. The claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that has been granted at Rs. 51,800/- have preferred this appeal. On a perusal of the evidence let in before the tribunal, this court is satisfied with regard to the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving and the same is confirmed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the oral evidence let in on behalf of the claimants shows that the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of his death. The Insurance Company claimed that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of his death. The lower court came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 45 years.

It must be borne in mind that it is for the claimants to prove the age of the deceased at the time of his death, and the burden never shifts on the other side. When the claimants have come forward with the oral evidence which is found to be not reasonable and when they have not filed any document either from the Municipality or the Voters list or any other document and when it is suggested to the witnesses that the age of the deceased was 50 years the lower court by duly taking into account the demeanour of the witnesses who made the statements assessed age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 45 years. It is neither reasonable nor permissible for this Court to interfere with such a finding. If there is any documentary evidence and if it has been misread and if there is oral evidence supported by any documentary evidence, this court can interfere with such a finding. Therefore, the finding with regard to the age of the deceased is also confirmed.

With regard to the Compensation that has been awarded, no material is placed before this court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one that has been arrived at by the lower court. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is a general feature for the claimants to claim more compensation and it is for the Insurance Company to reduce it as far as possible. Hence, the burden is on the court to decide as to what would be the reasonable compensation that has to be awarded.

Admittedly, the deceased was carrying six baskets of ducks at the time of the accident. No evidence was let in as to at what intervals the deceased was carrying the ducks. No account book was produced and none of the persons from whom the deceased was purchasing the ducks was examined to show whether the deceased was doing the business at intervals or frequently.

Under the circumstances, when no documentary evidence is produced and when exaggerated versions have been given and when the deceased was carrying only six baskets of ducks, it cannot be said that the deceased was doing business on a large scale and that his income used to be Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Lower Court, therefore, has arrived at a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as the income of the deceased and awarded the compensation as stated above. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the amount awarded by the lower court is a reasonable amount and it does not call for any interference. However, the interest awarded at 9% per annum is enhanced to 12% per annum.

In the result, except the modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.