CIVIL APPEAL 35 of 2010 on 31 October 2009

1. Tara Devi;

2. Ravi Karmali;

3. Rukmani Devi;

4. Amin Karmali; ... ... ... Appellants

-V e r s u s -

1. Rajendra Prasad;

2. Umesh Rajak;

3. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.;

4. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, City Centre, Bokaro.

... ... ... Respondents

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY

For the Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate.

11/22.04.2014

This appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and challenged the findings and award dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro – cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal in connection with M.V.A.C.T. No. 92/2007.

It is contended that the deceased was employed as a Meson under M/s. Alok Construction Company and the certificate in respect of his monthly income was also furnished. According to the income certificate, the deceased was by profession a Meson and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and he was aged about 25 years at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased by disbelieving the income certificate and the reasoning for disbelieving the income certificate is not tenable. The learned Tribunal has considered the deceased as daily wage earner and monthly income of the deceased has been assesed @Rs.90/- per day and that too for 26 days.

Now the principle has been settled, if no income certificate is furnished, notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month is to be taken. It is further argued by referring the case of 'Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another' reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 that if the number of dependents are four or above, the deduction towards the personal expenses should be made 1/4[th] instead of 1/3[rd] . The learned Tribunal has also wrongly chosen multiplier as 15 instead of 17.

In course of arguments the learned counsel has agreed to receive Rs.1

Lac. 25 thousand as additional compensation.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Insurance Company has opposed the arguments and submitted that the employer or the person who had issued the income certificate has not been examined and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the income certificate produced by the claimant. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly and properly considered the monthly income of the deceased and that needs no interference.

I have gone through the impugned Judgment and the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel appearing for the appellant and there appear substance in the submission. Since the appellants have agreed to receive Rs. 1Lac. 25 Thousand (Rs.1,25,000/-) as additional compensation, I do not feel it desirable to do further exercise to calculate the actual and just compensation to be paid to the appellant.

In the result, the respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1 Lac. 25 thousand as additional compensation and the amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of this order. If the respondent – Insurance Company fails to comply the order within aforesaid period of 60 days, the additional compensation amount of Rs.1 Lac.25 Thousand (Rs.1,25,000/-) shall carry interest @Rs.9% p.a..

With this modification in the impugned Award, the appeal stands partly allowed.

(D. N. Upadhyay, J.)