Shakuntala & Ors vs Balkrishna & Ors

The claimants in a motor accident claim are appellants before us. They

are the legal heirs of one Rajashekhar Kasture who died in a motor accident.

The deceased Rajashekhar Kasture was aged about 24 years at the time of his

death. He was employed as a Munim in Avinash and Co. On 20.7.1996, when

he was travelling in a lorry to bring sugar for his employer, the lorry met with an

accident and he fell down and died on the spot.

The claimants preferred claim contending that he was the only earning

member and was earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. The respondent No. 2 namely, the

lorry owner contended that the deceased was working only as a office boy and

was having a salary of Rs. 600/- p.m. To support his plea, RW1, the owner of

the company was also examined. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on

either side held that the salary of the deceased must have been around

Rs. 1200/- p.m. and by deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the monthly

dependency of the claimants must have been Rs. 800/- p.m. Taking the annual

income as Rs. 9600/-, the total compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,53,600/- and an

award was passed in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the

second respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka and

the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 81,600/- under the heading 'loss

of dependancy'. The Judgment of the High Court is challenged before us.

We heard learned Counsel on either side. The High Court considered the

evidence of RW1, the partner of the Avinash and Company with whom the

deceased was employed. RW1 deposed that the monthly salary of the deceased

was Rs. 600/-. RW1 had chosen to produce some receipts purportedly signed by

the deceased but he cleverly withheld the salary register maintained by the

company for the relevant period. The receipts were not originally produced but

later he produced them and the Tribunal rightly declined to take note of the

same. During the time of cross-examination, he admitted that the persons who

were similarly employed were being paid Rs. 1,500/- p.m. It is also difficult to

believe that the company would employ a person with such a meagre amount of

Rs. 600/- p.m. It may also be noticed that the company under the management

of RW1 was having 4 to 5 lorries and about 30 workers were employed under

them. He must have been keeping some documents in respect of payment of

salary to his workers but such documents were not produced. The Tribunal had

considered the evidence in detail and came to a rational conclusion regarding the

income of the deceased. The learned Single Judge without considering the

evidence of RW1 simply brushed aside the whole evidence and accepted the

statement of RW1 solely on the ground that the employer himself had spoken

regarding the salary and it must have been taken as correct. This approach

made by the High Court is not at all justified having regard to the entire facts and

circumstances of the case. The High Court, on flimsy reasons, interfered with

the award passed by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was just and reasonable.

In the result, we allow the appeal preferred by the claimants and set aside

the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. If the appellants have not been paid

the amount, the same shall be paid as directed in the award by the Tribunal

within two months. There will be no order as to costs.