Smt. Rakhi vs. Sunil

Held

The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-. The Court found that the testimony of AW/3 Bhagatram, the proprietor of Patidar Borewell, along with documentary evidence such as salary vouchers, income tax returns, computation sheets, attendance registers, and the GST registration certificate (Ex.P/12), sufficiently proved the deceased's monthly income to be Rs. 11,500/-. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in cases like United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta, Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and Kusum Lata & Ors. vs. Satbir & Ors., emphasizing that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence applicable in criminal trials and should follow a summary procedure based on the preponderance of probability. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income was set aside, and the deceased's income was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- per month. Future prospects of 40% were added, and a deduction of 1/4 for personal expenses was maintained as per Sarla Verma's case. The Court also enhanced the compensation for loss of consortium and awarded amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 10,78,000/- to Rs. 25,68,400/-, resulting in an additional sum of Rs. 14,90,400/-.

Facts

This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The appeal arises from an award dated March 3, 2020, in Claim Case No. 231/2018. The accident date, negligence, and liability were not disputed. The MACT had awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,78,000/- for the death of Vijay, based on his monthly earnings of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellants contended that this amount was inadequate, arguing that the deceased, a supervisor at Patidar Borewell, earned Rs. 11,500/- per month, a fact supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony. The respondent insurance company argued that the MACT's award was just and fair.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- when evidence suggested it was Rs. 11,500/- (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the assessment of income under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants argued that the MACT committed an error by not accepting the deceased's monthly income as Rs. 11,500/-, which was supported by the testimony of AW/3 Bhagatram (employer), salary vouchers (Ex.P/13 & 14), income tax returns, computation sheets, attendance register, and the GST registration certificate of the firm. They prayed for enhancement of compensation based on this higher income. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent insurance company contended that the salary certificate and pay slips of the deceased were not adequately proved before the Tribunal, and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just, fair, and reasonable, requiring no interference.