Conservator of Forest, Adhunik Van Agni Saman v. Smt. Madhavi Devi

I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the evidence on record including the impugned award. I have also perused the cross-objection filed on behalf of the claimants, a reference whereof shall be made in the latter part of the judgment. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appellant has not taken any specific plea in the appeal, rather the legality of the impugned judgment has been challenged on very weak and general manner. Even in the course of argument, the learned Standing Counsel could not point out any such illegality in the award under challenged so as to warrant interference of this Court. Even other wise the salient feature of the case are being examined herein. In the case at hand, the claimant-respondents are the dependents of the deceased Hari Dutt. The factum of accident is admitted to the appellant. Though the burden to prove the negligence lay upon the claimants, but in this case this burden also shifted to the appellants as they have taken up another stand and manner of accident. Therefore, material aspect regarding evidence led by the parties is to be seen. The claimants have filed death certificate, copy of FIR photo copy of post mortem report, inspection report, site plan of the place of accident and other relevant papers regarding income and age of the deceased. Out of the witnesses produced by the claimants, two witnesses viz. P.W.2 Laxmi Datt and P.W.3 Ganesh Datt have given ocular account of the accident leading to the injuries and death of the deceased. I have read out the entire testimony of these two witnesses and find that they have given unshakened account of the whole incident and from their cross-examined nothing could be elicited which may give favour to the case of the opposite parties. The appellants have produced driver of the offending matador Virendra Singh D.W.1, who has tried to support the appellants as well as to save his skin. In his deposition he had stated that when the Rickshaw struck with the vehicle, the occupants thereof already fell on the road and empty Rickshaw hit the matador, but surprisingly no such stand was taken in the written statement. From a complete reading of his deposition vis-à-vis the written statement filed by the appellants goes to show that the deposition of the D.W.1 does not find corroboration from the pleas taken in the written statements. In the written statements, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Rickshaw puller, but in the witness box it has been said that the passengers carried on Rickshaw had already went off the rickshaw and empty Rickshaw hit the motor vehicle. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 read with documentary evidence on record including the F.I.R., site plan of the place of occurrence, spot inspection report filed by the claimants are sufficient to indicate that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/-, took the income of the deceased for purposes of loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 500/- in all. It was established on record that the deceased was getting Rs. 737/- as monthly pension and the Tribunal only assessed total contribution of the deceased to his family to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month which included Rs. 200/- from agriculture. No amount toward loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses were awarded by the Tribunal. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that compensation worth Rs. 1,68,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The ownership of the vehicle is admitted to the appellants. It is not denied that the accident took place in the course of his employment by the driver of the vehicle. The appellant could not lead any reliable or trustworthy evidence to indicate that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants have miserably failed to discharge their burden. The liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act lay upon the owner of the vehicle. I see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Now, coming to the cross-examination filed by the claimant-respondents, it appears that claimants were not satisfied by the dependency assessed by the Tribunal. The claimants could not lead any such evidence to indicate that there was substantive income of Rs. 12000/- per annum to the deceased and which could not be availed by the claimants due to his death. The deceased was not a young man but he was aged 47 years. The income from agriculture was not being taken away. The Tribunal has assessed the loss @ of about Rs.200/- per month. The amount of compensation has been properly assessed. It is well settled that in assessing the loss of dependency, aid of some guess-work is bound to be taken. The court is required to see that adequate compensation is awarded to the claimants. There is no concrete evidence to show that the deceased was having net and regular income from agriculture yield. It has not been shown as to how much agricultural land was in possession of the deceased and from which source income of Rs.2,000/- was available, which on account of demise of the deceased has come to an end. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to find favour with the claimants to enhance compensation amount. The award of the Tribunal is proper and fair. Cross-objections are accordingly liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and must fail. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cross-objections filed by the claimants is also dismissed. The award under challenge is upheld. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 19-11-1990 is vacated. RCP (B.S.Verma, J.)