The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence to determine the quantum of compensation and the requirement of cogent evidence to prove marriage in cases of entitlement to compensation.

S. S. JHA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this judgment M. A. Nos. 74 and 115 of 1998 are decided as both the appeals arise out of common award.

( 2 ) IN this appeal only question involved in this case is regarding quantum of compensation and whether respondent Durgabai is entitled for compensation on account of death of Dr. Surendra Kumar Biswas. Other findings recorded by the Claims tribunal are not under challenge.

( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that since documents pertaining to payment of income tax have not been produced in the court, therefore, it is presumed that income of deceased was not more than rs. 28,000 per annum and determined yearly dependency at Rs. 18,660.

( 4 ) WE have gone through the evidence on record. PW 1 Geeta Rani, wife of the deceased, has deposed in para 4 of her deposition that income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000 per month. She has further deposed that the deceased was having two dispensaries one at Raisen and other at village ganjbasoda in District Vidisha. In the cross-examination on the question of income, this witness has deposed in para 22 that income of her husband was Rs. 7,000 p. m. from the clinic at Ganjbasoda. In the same para, she has further deposed that her husband was income tax payer and used to pay income tax but she could not get papers regarding payment of income tax. PW 4, Mahanand Kumar Biswas, had deposed that the deceased was a doctor and has a large practice. His income was around Rs. 1,000-1,500 per day and his net savings was between Rs. 250-300 per day. He admitted that Geeta Rani was the wife of the deceased and deceased had no other wife.

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the evidence of both the witnesses on record we find that the deposition of PW 4 Mahanand Kumar Biswas that net savings of the deceased was around Rs. 300 per day, does not appear to be proper, as wife of the deceased has categorically deposed that income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000 per month. Considering the number of the members of the family; three sons and one daughter, who are studying, we hold that income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000 per month as evident on record. The deceased was around 55 years of age. Therefore, multiplier of 8 will be applicable in this case. Yearly income of the deceased is determined at rs. 34,000 and dependency is determined at Rs. 56,000 per annum. Compensation is determined at Rs. 4,48,000. To this amount further sum of Rs. 12,000 is added for damages under various heads, such as loss to the estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc. and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,60,000.

( 6 ) NEXT question is whether respondent durgabai is entitled for any compensation. It is admitted in evidence that deceased has left behind his wife, three sons and one daughter. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that Durgabai was married to the deceased. On the contrary, an affidavit of Durgabai Exh. P-23 is on record, in which she has stated that she is widow of subhash Adhikari and was serving as a nurse. Even otherwise, if there is suggestion that said Durgabai has married the deceased Dr. Surendra Kumar Biswas during the subsistence of first marriage, then the second marriage will be void. Durgabai has been examined as DW 1. She has deposed that the deceased was her husband, who brought her from Kolkata and she used to live as wife of deceased. She has deposed that she was married in a temple, but nature of ceremony performed has not been stated by her. She was unable to give the date, time and year of her marriage with the deceased. She has deposed that her first husband died 20-25 years back. In the examination-in-chief she has deposed that she was married in a temple, whereas in para 23 of cross-examination she has deposed that she was married in the house of her parents. Some criminal case was also instituted by her against the deceased. Marriage between the parties can only be proved by leading cogent evidence regarding the manner in which the marriage was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document