Smt. Wahida Begam vs. Salik Ram Soni

Facts

This is an appeal filed by the claimants (widow and children) of the deceased, Mohammad Shafi, against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased died in a road accident on May 2, 2015, due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of a bus. The claimants filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 80,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,93,000/- as compensation. The claimants argued that the employer's testimony and salary certificate were wrongly disbelieved and that parental consortium was not awarded to the minor children. The insurance company contended that the income proof was insufficient and the compensation awarded was just.

Held

The Court held that the salary certificate (Ex.P-7) was merely a computer-typed document with a seal and signature, lacking details like registration or GST numbers to establish the proprietor's identity. The Tribunal's disbelieving of this certificate, based on the witnesses' statements, was found to be just and based on proper appreciation of evidence, thus rejecting the appellants' contention regarding income underestimation. The Court also found the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 9,000/- and the subsequent calculation of loss of dependency, medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and companionship to be reasonable. However, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), the Court was inclined to award Rs. 40,000/- each as parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 5, in addition to the compensation already awarded. This enhancement would make the total compensation just and proper. The appeal was partly allowed, with the enhanced amount to be paid by the insurance company within 60 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the salary certificate and employer's testimony regarding the deceased's income, thereby underestimating the compensation? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to parental consortium in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors? (Question of law) Contentions: Appellants/Claimants: Argued that the employer was examined and a salary certificate was exhibited, which the Tribunal wrongly disbelieved. They also contended that parental consortium, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors, was not awarded to the minor claimants (appellants No. 2 to 5) and should be granted, leading to an enhancement of compensation. Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company): Opposed the submissions, arguing that only a computerized salary certificate was produced without other supporting documents, justifying the Tribunal's rejection and the compensation awarded. They contended that the compensation awarded was just and did not require interference.