HARPREET KAUR Vs. DHARAM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Surender Pal Singh, who died in a road accident on 28.08.1992, seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi by its judgment and award dated 25.07.2001.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that a claim petition bearing Suit No. 899/1992 was filed by the appellants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation in the sum of ' 80 lacs against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending tanker, which had crushed the TSR in which the deceased was travelling as a passenger. In the written statement filed by him, the respondent No.1 denied that he was driving the offending tanker at the time of the accident, but the insurance of the said vehicle in the name of the respondent No.2- owner was admitted by the Insurance Company, arrayed as the respondent No.3 in the claim petition. The learned Claims Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the deceased Surender Pal Singh as well as the driver of the TSR had suffered fatal injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, proceeded to assess the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the documentary evidence on record.

(3.) The Tribunal took into account the testimony of PW4 Smt. Harpreet Kaur (the appellant No.1), who testified that her husband, whose date of birth was 25.11.1955, was an Engineer by profession earning a sum of ' 40,000/- per month and was an income-tax payee. She also stated that he was the proprietor of M/s. Hydrolog Engineers which was dealing in water treatment plants and a Director in M/s. Moon Drop Chemineers Private Limited and M/s. I.E.I. Engineering Services Limited. He was also the proprietor of M/s. K.S.Chugh and Associates, Ludhiana dealing in the manufacture of auto parts and machine products and had taken over the factory just before his death. She proved on record the Income-tax Returns for the Assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94 as well as the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1992-93 (Exhibit PW4/2 to Exhibit PW4/4). In the course of her examination, she stated that M/s. Hydrolog Engineers is now a partnership firm and she is one of the partners. She further stated that the present income from the said business was ' 2,00,000/, which was her share and the firm was still paying income-tax. In answer to a query put to her, she admitted that the Income-tax Returns were filed after the death of her husband, though she categorically denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning ' 40,000/- per month.