- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi (Rajasthan), whereby the learned Judge has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,44,668/- to the claimants-appellants, the claimants-appellants have still approached this Court for enhancement.
(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that on 09.9.2000, Dinesh was going to Mathura in a Tata Sumo, bearing registration No.RJ-08/C-0710. IN the said sumo some other persons were also travelling. When the said sumo crossed the Govardhan Choraha on National Highway, a truck, bearing registration No.PB-10AF-2298, being driven rashly and negligently, coming from Delhi, hit the said Tata Sumo. Resultantly, Dinesh, along with other persons, suffered injuries. Dinesh was hospitalized at Vipin Nursing Hospital. Subsequently, he expired. The appellants filed a claim petition; the respondents denied the averments made by the claimants. The learned tribunal after going through the oral and documentary evidence awarded the compensation amount of Rs.2,44,668/- to the claimants. Still being aggrieved with the said award, the claimants has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to take the notional income of Dinesh as Rs.15,000/-. For, according to Smt. Manju (A.W.1), her husband was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Secondly, in spite of taking the notional income, the learned Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages. According to the minimum wages of year 2000, the petitioner would have earned about Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, his notional income should have been assessed as Rs.36,000/- per annum. Relying upon the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. V/s. Mohd. Tabbar and Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488], the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the notional income should have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. For, the Second Schedule was added in the year 1994. At the relevant time, although Rs.15,000/- could have been considered to be an adequate amount, but subsequently due to the price-rise, the notional income now should be taken as Rs.36,000/- per annum. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that although Smt. Manju, appellant No.1, has stated in her testimony that her husband was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but she could not substantiate her claim by any documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal has clearly noted that neither any income certificate, nor any document, to show the fact that the deceased was working as an agriculturist, was produced. There is a wide difference between alleging or claiming a fact and proving the existence of the fact. Although appellant No.1 pleaded that her husband was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, yet she was unable to substantiate this fact. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that there is no evidence to show that Dinesh was earning Rs.10,000/- at the time of his accidental death. Notional income has been prescribed by law, in order to deal with a case where actual income of the deceased is unknown, or where the deceased is unemployed by reason of his age or otherwise. According to the Second Schedule, the notional income is Rs.15,000/- per annum. Thus, the learned Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income as Rs.15,000/-per annum. Although, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. (supra), yet the case deals with the application of multiplier. There is no discussion with regard to the notional income. Hence, the said is inapplicable to the present case. Once, the notional income has been prescribed by law, the said notional cannot be amended through judicial interpretation. For, it is well settled that the judiciary does not have the power to amend the law. In case, the courts are of the opinion that the law needs to be amended, at best, it may recommend to the Legislature that the law should be reconsidered and amended according to the present condition prevalent in the country. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum, instead of Rs.36,000/- per annum.
(3.) THUS, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned award. This appeal is devoid of merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;