Parveen Firdousi vs. Taslim Khan

Facts

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Mohd. Amjad Firdousi, filed an appeal challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The deceased died in an accident on September 25, 2017, due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of a bus. The appellants claimed Rs. 42,50,000/- in compensation. The MACT awarded Rs. 7,00,000/-. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, had raised a plea regarding the driver not holding a valid driving license and violation of policy terms. The appellants argued that the MACT wrongly disbelieved the deceased's income as stated by his employer and that the awarded compensation was insufficient. The respondents supported the MACT's decision, contending that the salary certificate was not substantiated by other documents like GST registration or EPF deductions.

Held

The High Court held that while the MACT was justified in disbelieving the salary certificate as the sole basis for the deceased's income due to lack of corroborating evidence such as GST registration or EPF deductions, it could reassess the income based on other available evidence and prevailing minimum wages. The Court determined that a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- for the deceased, aged 40, was a reasonable figure considering the nature of his job, number of dependents, and the date of the accident. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance, the Court recalculated the compensation. The total compensation was assessed at Rs. 14,50,000/-. Since the MACT had already awarded Rs. 7,00,000/-, the appellants were held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of appeal filing. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit this additional amount within 60 days. Specific directions were given for the investment of portions of the compensation in fixed deposits for the appellants.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the income of the deceased, Mohd. Amjad Firdousi, as stated by his employer, thereby leading to an inadequate compensation award? (Question of fact and law, turning on appreciation of evidence and principles of compensation assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellants: Submitted that the employer's testimony regarding the deceased's monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- plus daily allowances should have been accepted. They argued that the compensation awarded on all heads was on the lower side and required enhancement. Revenue/State (Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company): Contended that the salary certificate alone was insufficient proof of income. They argued that the absence of documents like GST registration or EPF deductions justified the Tribunal's disbelief of the stated salary. They asserted that the compensation awarded was just and did not warrant interference.