ORIENTAL INSURACE CO LTD Vs. CHANDRIKABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - The Oriental Insurance Company has filed this above said appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad City in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.627 of 2001, dated 30.08.2005. This appeal has been filed on the point of quantum. Respondent claimant has also filed appeal because lessor multiplier has been used.

(2.) DECEASED Mahendrabhai Patel was aged about 38 years old and as per the case of the claimants, he was serving in firm M/s. Chokshi Vinaykumar Kantilal and also doing agricultural work, serving in STD PCO and earning handsome income. However, in support of their say, the claimants could not produce any documentary proof about actual income of deceased and even the Tribunal has recorded the finding in para 18 and 19 of its impugned judgment that the source of income are not so reliable, convincing and cogent still it has considered Rs.5,000/ - per month as income including prospective income of deceased which is much on higher side. If one can believe the story of claimants then it lead to conclusion that the deceased was serving in said firm, doing agricultural work as well as job in STD PCO, simultaneously which is not possible for human being to do all this job at one point of time. Therefore, it appears that deceased was not having secured source of income and he may be doing some seasonable work with different firm and considering the educational background of deceased (8th Std. pass) and as he was doing alleged job in small town namely, Unjha, considering year of accident, i.e. 2001, his income may not be considered more than Rs.2,000/ - per month and it is well settled law that for considering the future prospective income, claimants have to show the evidence which is missing in present case then as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others reported in 2006 (3) SCC 242, no prospective income ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.

(3.) WHAT is foremost in this case is that the evidence of the claimant has been accepted by the Tribunal on the question of the income of the deceased. No evidence was led by the appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal, though it had permission to defend.