SBCMA No.2614/07
Smt. Sayari & Anr. Vs. Bhim Singh & Ors.
-{1}-
SBCMA No.2614/07
Smt. Sayari & Anr. Vs. Bhim Singh & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 15.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.SK Sankhala, for the appellant.
Mr.Mukul Singhvi, for the the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant is aggrieved against the award dated
28.7.2007 by which according to learned counsel for the
appellant, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District
Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur) awarded less
compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- only to the claimant in a
case where the claimant no.1’s husband and claimant no.2’s
father died.
So far as occurring of accident on 4.12.2003 by the
bus driven by the respondent Bhim Singh is concerned,
there is no dispute that the respondent was guilty of
driving rashly and negligently and in that accident, the
SBCMA No.2614/07
Smt. Sayari & Anr. Vs. Bhim Singh & Ors.
-{2}-
victim Bhagwan Ram died. According to the claimants, the
deceased Bhagwan Ram had agricultural income as he was
having 50 bighas of irrigated land. According to learned
counsel for the appellant, the victim was earning Rs. 2 lacs
per annum from the agricultural land. The tribunal has
committed serious error of law and fact in assessing the
income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month only. It is
also submitted that the tribunal was of the view that the
claimants suffered only loss of supervisory expenditure
because of the accident.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the record. To prove that the
victim was holding 50 bighas of agricultural land, the
claimants produced the copies of Jamabandi as well as
copies of Girdhawari wherein the crop has been recorded by
the revenue authorities. It is the case of the appellant that
victim was earning Rs.2 lacs per year from the said land for
which, admittedly, no documentary evidence has been
produced by the claimants. However, the tribunal was of the
view that since the deceased was holding the agricultural
SBCMA No.2614/07
Smt. Sayari & Anr. Vs. Bhim Singh & Ors.
-{3}-
land, therefore, he must had earning from the agricultural
land. According to learned counsel for the appellant the
tribunal was of the view that the victim’s brother is helping
in agriculture and because of that reason only, the tribunal
reached to the conclusion that income of the appellant was
Rs.3,000/- per month.
Since no documentary evidence was produced by the
claimant for the income of the deceased, which could have
been produced as the crop which gives profit of Rs.2 lac
must have been sold in the market. It is not the case of the
claimants that the victim was getting crop of Rs. 2 lacs per
annum, but it is the case of the claimant that victim was
getting the income of Rs. 2 lacs from agricultural produce.
In view of the above, if the tribunal taking into
account of the surrounding circumstances that the land and
the income from the agricultural will certainly go to the
claimant and after the death of her husband and,
thereafter, assessed the income of the victim @ Rs.3,000/-
per month, I do not find that the tribunal has committed
any error. The award of compensation of Rs. 3,29,000/- in
SBCMA No.2614/07
Smt. Sayari & Anr. Vs. Bhim Singh & Ors.
-{4}-
the facts of this case cannot be said to be low in any
manner.
Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed having
no merit.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-