JUDGMENT
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. These two appeals have been directed against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.1.2000 in M.V.C. 3226 of 1995 and M.V.C. 3225 of 1995. At about 14.30 hours on 16.6.1995 a tanker carrying kerosene met with a serious accident in the course of which it collided with a lump-post and caught fire and two persons who were close-by were seriously burnt. Out of them one Nagappa who was supposed to have been working as a cook in a nearby hotel survived whereas the second person by name Ali Hassan died. Nagappa as also the L.Rs. of Ali Hassan preferred claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material placed before it awarded compensation aggregating to Rs. 1,44,000/- to Nagappa along with interest at the rate of 9%. As far as the L.Rs. of Ali Hassan were concerned, compensation quantified at Rs. 2,39,000/- and interest at the rate of 9% was awarded and these two appeals have been directed against those orders. Though we propose to dispose of the two appeals through a common order the facts being slightly dissimilar require individual consideration.
2. The entire issue in dispute essentially centres round the question as to what was the real status of the deceased as also of Nagappa and secondly, as to what precisely was the amount that they were earning. As far as Ali Hassan is concerned, the pleadings claim that he was the joint owner of a hotel at Bidadi. Subsequently, at the stage of the evidence there was a slight departure from this contention and the plea put forward was that he was the Manager of the Hotel. The claimants also produced a Salary Certificate to the effect that he was being paid a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge for a variety of reasons has disbelieved this contention and has held that at the highest, the deceased could have been working as an employee in the hotel and that he would have been earning a salary of Rs. 50/- per day or Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is on this basis that the subsequent computation has been done. There is really no dispute with regard to the multiplier that has been applied.
3. The appellants’ learned Advocate submitted that the learned trial Judge has totally overlooked one very important fact viz., that the owner of the hotel has been examined as a witness, that he has proved the Salary Certificate issued by him and that he has corroborated the contentions which are to the effect that the deceased was being paid Rs. 6,000/- per month as the Manager. His submission is that there is absolutely no warrant for the Trial Court to have disbelieved or disregarded this evidence and that this Court must take corrective action by altering the compensation awarded on the basis of the income being computed at Rs. 6,000/- per month. This position is seriously contested by the learned Advocate who represents the respondents. What he draws our attention to is the fact that the proprietor of the Hotel has made a bald statement in the witness box that he was paying the deceased Rs. 6,000/- per month and has submitted that he has absolutely no other evidence particularly documentary evidence in support of this contention.
4. The appellants’ learned Advocate submitted that having regard to the fact that this was a hotel on a busy highway that this Court must take judicial notice of the fact that these establishments virtually work round-the-clock, that the turnover is extremely high, that the work load is equally high and that, consequently, there is nothing unusual about the fact that the Manager could have been paid Rs. 6,000/- per month. We are unable to accept this submission for only one reason viz., where a claim is made the onus of proof lies on the claimant and it is necessary that cogent and reliable evidence in support of the contention must be put forward. One cannot proceed on the basis of surmises or general knowledge particularly in cases where compensation is required to be awarded because the law prescribes that the status and income of the claimant must be established and that there are very well defined norms on the basis of which compensation is to be awarded depending on the figures that emerge. We take note of the fact that this was a small eating house on a highway and that if the income or turnover was exceptionally high that the proprietor would have been able to produce supportive documentary evidence from which the Court could have definitely accepted that the establishment was such as to be able to pay a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the Manager. Furthermore, the post of Manager is distinguishable from that of a casual employee or servant and there is nothing that has been produced to indicate that the status of any reliable material that would justify an enhancement, we have no option except to refuse interference as far as the case of Ali Hassan is concerned.
5. Coming to the case of Nagappa, the contention raised is that he was working as a Cook and that he was earning a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same considerations as pointed out by us above would hold good in this case also because there is absolutely no material to justify either the status or the salary that is claimed to have been paid to Nagappa. Furthermore, what we need to take notice of is that Nagappa was ostensibly an agricultural labourer and he is supposed to have been on his way to the hotel and the learned trial Judge has very rightly pointed out that if Ali Hassan was the Manager, he would not have walked all the way to the place of Nagappa in order to bring him to the Hotel. Again, in the case of Nagappa the same problem comes up insofar as the Trial Court has accepted the position that his income would have been Rs. 1,200/- per month. The correct multiplier has been applied and the compensation payable to him under the different heads has been carefully and correctly computed. Consequently, unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest error or unless it is demonstrated to this Court that the material on record would justify enhancement, there is no scope for interference.
6. In the light of our findings recorded above, the two appeals fail and stand dismissed. No order as to costs.