Smt. Neha Piplva vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited

Facts

The appellants, the legal heirs of the deceased Hitesh Piplva, filed a claim for compensation following his death in a motor accident on August 31, 2022. The deceased was employed at Prithu Mill and Machinery Stores and allegedly earned Rs. 18,000 per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,27,060 against a claim of Rs. 36,22,500. The insurer, National Insurance Company Limited, denied liability, alleging the vehicle lacked a valid fitness permit and the driver lacked a license, and further suggested the accident was due to the deceased's own negligence. The Tribunal found in favour of the claimants but assessed the deceased's income based on minimum wages, leading to the present appeal.

Held

The Court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the salary certificate and treating the deceased as an unskilled labourer earning minimum wages. While acknowledging the lack of supporting documents like firm returns or payment vouchers, the Court found it "cannot be ruled out" that the deceased was working in the firm. The Court determined that the deceased was a salaried employee, and although his salary might not have been Rs. 18,000, it could be reasonably assessed at Rs. 15,000 per month, considering his age, the number of dependents (wife, two minor children, and parents), and the long period they would be without his support. Applying the principles from Supreme Court judgments like National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court recomputed the compensation, leading to an enhancement of Rs. 11,47,440. The enhanced amount was directed to carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of appeal filing until realization. Specific directions were given for disbursing fixed deposits for the minor children and wife, and for disbursing the remaining amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages, thereby awarding an inadequate compensation? (Question of law and fact, concerning assessment of income under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellants: Argued that the Claims Tribunal erred by not relying on the salary certificate and the testimony of the firm's proprietor, which proved the deceased's monthly salary was Rs. 18,000. They contended that compensation on other heads was also on the lower side and required enhancement. Revenue/State (Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company): Supported the award, arguing that the Claims Tribunal rightly disregarded the salary certificate due to lack of supporting documents like firm returns or vouchers. They contended that the assessment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and the appeal should be dismissed.