http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5206 of 2003

PETITIONER: Shakuntala & Ors.                                                

RESPONDENT: Vs. Balkrishna & Ors.                                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/2003

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 2901/2002)

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       Leave granted.

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.