N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Hanumangarh, dt. 1.10.1996, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/ -, on account of death of Hari Krishan, who died in an accident taking place on 25.9.1993, and was 35 years of age at the time of accident. The claimants are the widow and three minor children, of the age varying from 10 to 14, at the time of claim petition.
(2.) SINCE the issue relating to negligence has been decided in favour of the claimants, and there is no cross objection or cross appeal on the side of the defendants, therefore, I need not go into the facts regarding negligence, and would better concentrate on the issue relating to quantum, finding whereon is recorded by the learned Tribunal in issue No. 2, and are precisely under challenge. In the claim petition it is alleged, that the deceased was carrying on business, and was undertaking agriculture operations, and was earning a total income of more than Rs. 3,500/ - per month, and that, according to the income tax return of the year 1993 -94 the income is Rs. 42,680/ - per year. On that basis a sum of Rs. 14,40,000/ -has been claimed for 40 years loss of income. Then, a sum of Rs. 14,261/ - has been claimed in para -14 as medical expenditure, as the deceased had to be carried from Hanumangarh Junction to Ludhiana for treatment. The income tax returns for the assessment year 1992 -93 and 93 -94 have been produced on record. According to which, in the assessment year 1992 -93 the income is assessed at Rs. 26,220/ -, while in the return of the assessment year 1993 -94 the income is shown at Rs. 21,826.29, and agriculture income has been shown to be Rs. 20,850/ -. Then, certain documents have been filed regarding expenditure incurred in purchase of medicines, investigation, medical examination fees, hiring of the vehicle in which he was taken, and ambulance charges, and so on.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal has found, that so far as the agriculture income is concerned, according to Section 104 of the Tenancy Act only 1/6th of the product is receivable by the owner, and there is no material evidence to show that the claimant widow would give the land to any -body -else for cultivation, rather the land will continue to remain with dependents, and they will only be deprived of the supervision, which would have been undertaken by the deceased, and looking to the quantum of land being two bighas, loss has been assessed at Rs. 400/ - per month. Then, regarding income from business it has been considered, that in the income tax return of 1992 -93, it is shown to be Rs. 26,220/ -, while in the return of the year 1993 -94 it has been shown to be Rs. 21,830/ -. Thus, the income has rather reduced. However, it was considered that the income was also likely to be increased, and on an average, monthly income of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 2,000/ - per month. Thus, the total income has been assessed at Rs. 2400/ - per month. Then, deducting 1/3rd on personal expenditure, and another Rs. 200/ - for the additional facilities, that may be enjoyed by him, being head of the family, the dependency has been assessed at Rs. 1400/ - per month, and employing a multiplier of 14, compensation has been awarded at Rs. 2,35,200/ -. Then, adding the amount of consortium and cremation charges etc., the compensation has been assessed at Rs. 2,52,200/ -. Regarding the expenses, it has been found, that no vouchers have been produced, and therefore, the amount cannot be awarded for medical expenditure. Likewise, regarding transportation also it has been found, that in absence of evidence and proof, that cannot be awarded.;