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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document