Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 487
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Appeal from Order No. 306 of 2009
SMT. SADHANA VISHWAS & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
MOHD. AZHAR & ORS. – Respondent
WITH Appeal from Order No. 309 of 2009
SMT. ASHA SHAH & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
MOHD. AZHAR & ORS. – Respondent
Decided on : 21.02.2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate
For the Insurance Co. :Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate
Headnote:
Motor Accident – Compensation claim – No cogent proof with regard to income of the deceased was submitted – Also, the firms in which deceased were working were not registered – There was no concrete evidence of their income – Therefore, in the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income. (Paras 2 to 4)
eksVj nq?kZVuk & izfrdj nkok & e`rd dh vk; ds laca/k esa dksbZ izcy lk{; miyCèk ugha Fkk & vkSj ;g fd QeZ ftlesa e`rd dk;Zjr Fkk iathÑr ugha Fkh & vk; dk dksbZ ;FkkFkZiw.kZ lk{; miyC/k ugha Fkk & bl izdkj ekuuh; vf/kdj.k }kjk fopkj ewyd vk; ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj dk fu/kkZj.k mfpr ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 2 ls 4½
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
1. The facts and questions of law in both the appeals are common, therefore, both are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts of the present appeals are that deceased Dhananjay and Narayan Das were going from Kichcha to Shakti farm on their motor cycle bearing no. UA 06 G 6591. Near Khalsa Dhaba, they were hit by one tractor driven by Shafiq Ahmed. Mohd. Azhar and Nirmal Rai were owners of that tractor. In the accident, Dhananjay and Narayan Das received grievous injuries and they died on the spot. Legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and granted compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of the deceased filed present appeals for enhancement.
3. The main argument of Mr. Zafarullah Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants is that learned Tribunal has not correctly assessed the monthly income of deceased Dhananjay and Narayan Das. Dhananjay was working as Munshi in a firm and was getting Rs. 5000/- per month and he was also earning Rs. 3000/- per month from farming while Narayan Das was working as Manager with a property dealer and getting Rs. 5200/- per month and had additional income of Rs. 3000/- per month from farming. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation on the basis of notional income.
4. Appellants had not submitted any cogent proof with regard to income of the deceased. The firms in which deceased were working were not registered. There was not concrete evidence of their income, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income.
5. In view of the above, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
6. Let the lower court record be sent back and copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeal. Amount, if any, deposited with the Registry be sent to the MACT concerned within two months from today.
