Smt. Noor Jahan Begum vs Smt. Uma Devi and Others

Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6. No one has appeared for the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 5 even in the revised list. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 30th August, 1986 passed in MACT No. 146 of 1984 by which compensation of Rs. 81,000/- with 6% interest has been awarded for the death of Jagdish Prasad.

The accident took place on 8th September, 1984. In the accident it is alleged that Bus No. UPT 6718 was involved. The deceased was on a bicycle and he was crushed to death by the said Bus on the Jhansi Mau Highway. The Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs. 81,000/- apportioned the liability to pay the same between the Insurance Company respondent No. 6 to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as the insurance was for the limited amount and the owners of the Bus to the extent of Rs. 31,000/-.

The appeal has been preferred by the owners of the Bus contending that actually no accident took place with the aforesaid bus on the relevant date.

In support of the above argument, they have relied upon papers No. 72 B and 73 C to show that there was no possibility for the Bus having met with the accident at 9 a.m. on the aforesaid date, inasmuch, it had left Jhansi at 9.50 a.m. The Tribunal has disbelieved the aforesaid papers in view of contrary stand taken by the driver of the bus Dinesh Kumar who had initially come out with the defence that he had left the job and was not the driver of the bus on the relevant date but in his statement took a somersault and stated that he was the driver of the bus and left Jhansi at 9.50 a.m. On the other hand, the FIR which was lodged immediately after the accident clearly mentioned the Bus number and on investigation the involvement of the bus was found.

In view of the above, if the Tribunal has taken the view that the Bus was actually involved in the accident, the said finding cannot be faulted with.

The other aspect raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and according to minimum wage applicable at the relevant time, he would have been earning Rs. 15/- per day and if that be taken as the basis, his monthly income would not be more than Rs. 450/- whereas the Tribunal though took his earning as Rs. 15/- per day, assessed the monthly income to Rs. 600/- which is incorrect

It has come in evidence that the deceased apart from being an agricultural labourer had been selling cloth i.e. Ranipur Terricot and as such the possibility of some income from the said business cannot outrightly be ruled out. Accordingly, taking into account the cumulative effect i.e., the minimum wage of a labour and some income from the aforesaid business, the Tribunal had assessed his monthly income to be Rs. 600/- per month. Such assessment of income cannot be taken to be on higher side as in making such assessment some guess work is permissible and the assessment of income cannot be on any mathematical basis. The Tribunal further after applying the deduction of Rs. 150/- per month towards personal expenses awarded compensation of Rs. 81,000/- only on the basis of the net income of Rs. 450/- per month. The said award is in no way arbitrary or illegal. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.