Kaushalya Devi And Ors vs. Bikkar Singh @ Kala And Ors

Facts

The appellants, claimants, are in appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased, Tarsem Chand, died at the age of 65. The appellants argued that the deceased was running a karyana (grocery) shop and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, and that the Tribunal ignored a rent agreement (Ex.C7) produced to prove this income. They also contended that no compensation was awarded for loss of estate. The revenue or State is not explicitly named as a party, but the appeal is against an award concerning compensation.

Held

The Court held that the plea regarding the deceased's income of Rs. 20,000/- per month was without merit. To prove the deceased was running a retail business, the claimants should have produced evidence such as a GST number, bills of purchase from wholesalers, or evidence of sales to customers. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income at Rs. 6,000/- per month was found to be faultless. However, the Court agreed with the appellants' contention that nothing was awarded for loss of estate. Accordingly, the award was modified to grant the claimants Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate. The rest of the award was maintained. The principle is that while income claims require substantiation with business-related evidence, loss of estate is a compensable head where appropriate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased Tarsem Chand at Rs. 6,000/- per month, despite the appellants' claim of Rs. 20,000/- per month based on a rent agreement (Ex.C7) for a karyana shop. The appellants argued that the rent agreement should have been considered to prove the deceased's income. The revenue or State did not present arguments on this issue. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation on account of loss of estate. The appellants contended that this was a valid claim that should have been compensated.