JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 21-4-1977 partly allowing the application of the appellant and awarding a Compensation of Rs. 6,000/- against respondent No. 1.
2. The Case of the appellant was that on 17th August, 1973. While be was travelling along with his wife, Smt. Shakun deceased from Bilaspur to Nainital by bus No. USR 9194, the bus was hit by another bus No. USR 6478 owned by the same respondent. As a result of the accident Smt. Shakun who was 211/2 years of age, was driven out and died instantaneously. The appellant claimed that the deceased was educated upto B.A. and had done a senior course in Music. She had started a Music School and was earning Rs. 200/- per month from the said school run by her.
3. The claim was contested by the respondent No. 1, i.e. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent No. 1 admitted that an accident took place on the 17th August, 1973 and in that accident Smt. Shakun was died. The respondent No. 1, however, asserted that her death was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by Laxman Singh, the driver of bus No. USR 6478. On the pleadings of the parties four issues were framed. On issues Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of bus No. USR 6478. On the question of compensation the Claims Tribunal held that the deceased Smt. Shakun was running a Music School, that she was earning Rs. 200/- per month and that out of Rs. 200/- per month she was spending a portion of the same on herself and the remaining on school's maintenance. On this finding the Tribunal found that the appellant could not be said to have been deprived of any benefit of the earning of the deceased. However, for the loss of the Company and services which he was getting from Smt. Shakun the Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,000/- by way of Compensation.
4. Against the judgment the respondent No. 1 has not filed any appeal.
5. In the appeal, filed by the appellant, who was the claimant before the Tribunal, the plea taken is that the compensation awarded is much too less than what would have been awarded under the law and established by the evidence brought on record by the appellant. Sri Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant, represented that the deceased was since earning Rs. 200/-per month the appellant was deprived of the part of the income which the deceased was contributing to the appellant. The income of the appellant is a small sum of Rs. 410/- per month. On account of the death of the deceased the appellant was deprived of a part of income earned by the deceased from the music school.
6. Before we take up the question of earning from music school, we wish to note an objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is to the effect that soon after the death of Smt. Shakun, the appellant remarried with one Smt. Usha Rani and as she was also a graduate whatever loss the appellant could be said to have suffered on account of the death of his previous wife could be made good by employing or engaging Smt. Usha Rani in some vocation or profession which could fetch more than what was being earned by the deceased wife.
7. Before the Court below there was a controversy as to whether the appellant had remarried Smt. Usha Rani or not. The appellant denied the same when he entered the witness box. The respondent No. 1, however, filed documentary evidence of the fact that Smt. Usha Rani had been living with the appellant. In the electoral roll filed by the respondent No. 1 she was also addressed as the wife residing with the appellant.
8. Apart from the documentary evidence, the respondent No. 1 bad moved an application in the Courts below for summoning Smt. Usha Rani before the Court to enable the respondent No. 1 to establish its case of remarriage of the appellant with Smt. Usha Rani. The Court had made an order for summoning of Smt. Usha Rani, but subsequently, she did not appear. From the fact that the appellant did not produce her before the Court, it is legitimate to conclude, as was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, that she was withheld from the Court as there was chance of truth of her marriage with the appellant to be established. We, after the consideration of the evidence, are led to believe this aspect of the case of respondent No. 1. From the documentary evidence as well, the conclusion independently of the order of summoning in the witness box can be drawn. The statement of the appellant is wavering and does not inspire confidence of the fact that he did not remarry. It is not for nothing that Smt. Usha Rani was living with the appellant.
9. Smt. Usha Rani was also a graduate and she could be usefully employed in some service for making an earning for the family. If she would have been employed, the appellant would have got the same amount of help from her out of her earning, which he was otherwise driving from the earning of the deceased Smt. Shakun.
10. Moreover, from the evidence, we are not satisfied that the deceased Shakun was earning Rs. 200/- per month from the Music School, which was only three months' old at the time of her death. No doubt the appellant has made a statement to the above effect, but no documentary evidence or any other independant evidence has been brought on record to establish the same. Even if Smt. Shakun could be said to have been running a music school, it is difficult to hold on the state of affairs of the evidence on the record that she was getting Rs. 200/- per month earned by teaching music to the students coming to her. Her income could not be Rs. 200/- and the statement made by the appellant to that effect is merely an exaggerated figure for the purpose of the present case. Even if it be assumed that the deceased was between earning Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200 she must have been spending on the maintenance of the musical instrument which the appellant has stated that she had all her own in the school.
11. So far as the question of loss of the company which the appellant had to suffer, is concerned, the same was estimated at Rs. 200/- and for the same the court below has awarded Rs. 6,000/-. To us, it appears that this award is justified and cannot be enhanced especially when we have held above that after the death of Smt. Shakun, the appellant had remarried. Whatever loss was caused to the appellant by the death of Smt. Shakun was amply compensated by his remarriage. We have stated above that Smt. Usha Rani was also a graduate and equally qualified as Smt. Shakun was and she could get herself employed.
12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.