Bhuvan @ Bhuvansingh vs. Ramesh Parmar

Held

The Court held that the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 12,19,221/- as compensation. The appellants failed to prove that the deceased was working as a Mason earning Rs. 500/- per day. Although an Income Certificate (Ex.-P/6), GST Certificate (Ex.-P/22), and Work Order (Ex.-P/33) were produced, the deceased's parents admitted in cross-examination that they had not produced relevant documents to support the Mason certificate. Furthermore, the deceased's mother admitted that the deceased had worked in Gujarat but not in Jhabua district. The claimants did not obtain any certificate from the Labour Officer nor produced job cards to establish the deceased's employment as a Mason. In the absence of this material evidence, the Tribunal's assessment was deemed adequate. The Court found that medical expenses, income, future prospects, and other expenses were duly considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned award was considered adequate, just, and proper, not deserving enhancement. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellants, parents and siblings of the deceased Rakesh, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased, aged 20, died on March 15, 2019, after being hit by a truck driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. The appellants claimed Rs. 54,10,000/- stating the deceased was a Skilled Mason earning Rs. 500/- daily and incurred Rs. 2,72,000/- for treatment and funeral expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,19,221/- with 9% interest. The appellants argued the Tribunal erred by ignoring the Income Certificate (Ex.-P/6), GST Certificate (Ex.-P/22), and Work Order (Ex.-P/33), leading to a lower notional income assessment. Respondent No. 3 contended the award was adequate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 12,19,221/- as compensation to the appellants, considering the evidence presented regarding the deceased's income and occupation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and principles of assessing compensation). Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: - The Claims Tribunal erred by ignoring crucial documents like the Income Certificate (Ex.-P/6), GST Certificate (Ex.-P/22), and Work Order (Ex.-P/33). - The notional income assessed by the Tribunal was on the lower side, necessitating enhancement. - Relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016). Revenue/State's (Respondent No. 3) Arguments: - The impugned award is adequate and does not warrant any interference.