Mahadevi v. Sudha Kom. Mahabaleshwar Bhat

(By Sri. Anant Hedge, ADVOCATE) AND:

Manaharba 5/0. Dhanuba Zala Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar, Gujarat. . . .APPEU.ANTS

New India Assurance Company, D Block, Anjaria Chambers Jamnagar, Gujarat . . .RESPONDENTS (By Sri.N.R.Kuppeilur, ADVOCATE for R2 Ri-notice D/w This MFA is ified under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 05/124/2008 passed in MVC No.193/2004 on the file of the & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi, allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for orders this day, court delivered the following: - JUDGMENT Miscellaneous Civil No.101780/2011 for early hearing is allowed. Since LCR has been received, appeal is heard for final disposal.

2. One Mahableshwar Bhat, a mechanic met with a motor vehicle accident, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed. The appellants, who are the wife, children and mother respectively, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim petition though was opposed by the insurance company, was allowed by the M.A.C.T. and compensation of Rs.6,72,080/- with interest was awarded. Contending that the award does not reflect just compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal.

Shri Anant Hegde, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contend that, the deceased was not only a mechanic, but also an agriculturist and hence his income reckoned at Rs.64,000/- p.a. based on the income tax returns, which did not include the 4 income of the agricultural sources is erroneous. Learned counsel further submits that, the deceased being hardly 37 years of age at the time of his death, there being the future prospects of earning higher income during the later part of his life, the total income ought to have been taken at much higher amount. Learned counsel submits that, atleast 30% of the amount should be added to Rs.64,000/- and the loss of dependency be decided. Learned counsel submits that, the agricultural possessed by the deceased, was sold by the appellants on account of they being unable to manage the same. Learned counsel contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no just award by the M.A.C.T. and hence appeal allowed and impugned judgment may be modified.

Shri N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent — Insurance Company, on the other hand submitted that, there is no credible evidence with regard to earning of any income from the agricultural sources by the deceased. Further, 5 occupation of the deceased was not a secured employment and in the circumstances, there cannot be any addition to the income as reckoned by the M.A.C.T. Learned counsel however, rightly conceded that, deducting 1 / 3rd amount towards personal expenses of deceased is not correct, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Case of Sarala Verma (Smtj and Others ta Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Learned counsel, however, maintained that; no modification by way of enhancement of award is called for.

The arises for my consideration is: - awI.,*jwr the tribunal is justified j, reckoning the earnings of the deceased at Rs.64,000/- p.a.. and not adding any sum thereon towards future prospects?’

The 1t appellant has deposed as P.W. 1. Other than her self-serving testimony, there is no other credible evidence with regard to the deceased earning 6 income from agricultural lands possessed by him. It is true, the income tax returns i.e., Exs.P-8, 9 and 13 to 15 the R.T.C. extracts the deceased possessed agricultural lands. The deceased was a mechanic and his income was assessed. Ex.P- 16 is the P.A.N. card of the deceased. The income tax returns shows that the assessment year 200 1-02, income of the deceased was Rs.64,000/-. The income tax return does not show any income from agricultural sources. In the absence of any credible proof, it is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Ananth Hegde, that the deceased had income from agricultural lands. Being a mechanic, being involved in the work all the time, he might have not cultivated his land and having Jadgm.ftt.•and had no income, the income tax returns do not reflect any income from the agricultural sources.

The deceased was not having any secure4 employment. He was only a private mechanic. In the circumstances, the claim made for addition to the b 7 income reckoned by the tribunal, under the head, future prospects is not well founded.