Arvind Kumar and Others vs Mohd. Rais and Others

Rajiv Sharma and Satish Chandra, JJ.—Present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gonda in Claim Petition No. 68 of 2006.

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.2006, the deceased Smt. Savitri Devi was returning after her medical check up. A tempo No. UP-43 T-0637, which was coming from the opposite side and whose driver was driving the vehicle very negligently and rashly, hit the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. The Tempo was insured with M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Gonda. At the time of driving the vehicle, its driver was holding a valid driving licence as well as registration certificate. The husband of the deceased has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after examining the entire evidence, took the notional income of deceased as Rs. 15,000 and by deducting 1/3rd on personal expenditure, took Rs. 10,000 per annum for the purpose of computation of award. The Tribunal by looking the age of the deceased as 35 years, applied the multiplier of 17. Hence, total compensation was determined as Rs. 10,000 x 17 = Rs. 1,70,000. In addition to it, Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium were also awarded. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,79,500 was awarded by the Tribunal against the insurance company. Not being satisfied, the Appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

With this background, learned Counsel for Appellants submits that the deceased was earning Rs. 48,000 per annum but the Tribunal has wrongly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum. On specific query from the Bench, he admits that the deceased was merely a house wife but she was having the income by selling the milk. He also submits that her monthly income was Rs. 4,000, which comes to Rs. 48,000 per annum. However, he was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate this claim but relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2010 AICC 750 : 2010 (2) ACCD 1081 : 2010 (4) AWC 3954 (SC).

After hearing learned Counsel and on perusal on record, it appears that in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that non-earning home maker women cannot be equated with beggars, prostitute and prisoners. The criteria for home maker women can be estimated with living spouse but fact remains in the instant case that no proof pertaining to income of the deceased, who was a house wife, was neither submitted before the Tribunal nor before this Court. No proof was also submitted pertaining to the income of the living spouse by the claimant-husband. The Tribunal has specifically observed that there is no iota of the documentary evidence to corroborate the claim of the income of the deceased. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein.

In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.