M.A. No. 162 of 2012. Case: Radhiya Devi and Ors. Vs Mahesh Vishwakarma and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | M.A. No. 162 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.C. Sinha, Adv. and For Respondents: Zafar Alam and Nisha Thakur, Advs. |
| Judges | Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163(A) |
| Citation | 2015 (II) ACC 917 (Jhar), 2015 (1) AJR 495, 2015(3) JLJR 151 |
| Judgement Date | August 05, 2014 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Order:
Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.
-
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 5th June, 2012 passed by District Judge 5th cum-Motor-Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in connection with Claims Case No. 152 of 2005, whereby the Respondent New India Assurance Company Limited has been directed to pay Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation, including interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount.
-
The fact giving rise to the claim application is that the deceased Mukesh Yadav was going on bicycle to attend his duty, but on the way, near Barkatha, the truck, bearing Registration No. HR38L4572, in course of reversing, dashed Mukesh Yadav, as a result he sustained injuries and shifted to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. In course of treatment, Mukesh Yadav died. In this connection, Barkatha P.S. Case No. 94 of 2004 was registered. The Appellant No. 1 Radhiya Devi, being widow of the deceased-Mukesh Yadav, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children and mother of the deceased filed an application for grant of compensation and the said application was registered as Claims Case No. 152 of 2005.
-
The respondents, who were opposite parties in the original claim application, had put their appearance and filed their show cause and respective written statements.
-
It was pleaded by the appellants that the deceased at the time of his death was aged about 35 years and he was working as mason and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month.
-
On the other hand, the opposite parties (respondents herein) had opposed the claim application and submitted that the claimants (appellants herein) had not furnished any income certificate.
-
After adjudication, the claimants have been directed to be paid Rs. 1,67,000/- in lieu of death of said Mukesh Yadav.
-
The appellants/claimants have assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly considered notional income of the deceased, as indicated under Schedule-II of Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act. The claimants had pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as mason and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was not possible for them to produce income certificate because the deceased was a daily wage earner. Even in absence of any income certificate, learned Tribunal should...
To continue reading
Request your trial