UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MEVA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks to assail the Award dated 23rd May, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,11,000/- has been awarded to the respondents no.1 to 5 as legal representatives of the deceased Kabir Singh on account of the fatal injuries sustained by Kabir Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicular accident. The appellant is the Insurance Company with which the offending car was insured and accordingly has been held liable to indemnify the insured, viz., the respondent no.6 herein.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that the impugned Award is against the law and evidence on record. Mr. D.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the respondents no.1 to 5, though they alleged that the deceased was employed in Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. and earning Rs. 3500/- per month, they failed to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. No witness was examined from Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. or any other witness to prove that the deceased was working in Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. PW-1, Smt. Meva Devi, the widow of the deceased was the sole witness who examined herself for proving on record the occupation and the income of the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no material on record to prove that the deceased was even working for a livelihood except the testimony of his widow, PW-1, Smt. Meva Devi. He contended that in such circumstances, the future prospects of the deceased should not have been considered while computing the loss of dependency of the claimants, there being no evidence of any nature whatsoever on record pertaining to his future prospects. Further, it is contended by Mr. Sharma that the learned Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 17, and that keeping in view the age of the deceased the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted to augment the multiplicand.

(3.) I find from the records that the deceased was a matriculate, as is clear from his Matriculation Certificate, Ex.PW1/1 and his date of birth was 10th June, 1965. The date of the accident was 14th May, 2000, meaning thereby that at the time of the accident he was less than 35 years of age. PW1, Meva Devi, has categorically stated in the witness box that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month from Group-IV Securities Guarding Ltd. and has placed on record the salary slips of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3 and PW1/4, which in fact show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month. I see no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness. More so, when there is not even a suggestion put to the witness that the said salary certificate and salary slip placed on record by her are fake documents. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a case under the Motor Accident Vehicles Act is not the same as in a criminal case or in civil proceedings. Moreover, the deceased in the instant case was working as a guard with a reputed security agency. The salary slip placed on record is dated May'99 and presumably in the said year, the deceased must have been earning the aforesaid sum of money. He was in a regular job and was less than 35 years of age. In due course of time, the deceased would certainly have earned more and keeping in view the inflationary trend, it would be not unreasonable to add 50% to his income towards future prospects, in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, as has been done by the Tribunal.