LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-374

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEEPA BISHT

Decided On July 19, 2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
DEEPA BISHT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the Award dated 24.04.2010. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Contention is that the future prospects have been awarded in favour of the deceased although there was no evidence with the Tribunal of the deceased having a permanent job; he was only a businessman. The second contention is that under the head of "love and affection", a sum of '1 lac had been awarded; a token amount could alone have been awarded.

(2.) THE claimants had preferred a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the ,,MV Act). Mr. Bhim Rak Bisht had died in an accident which had taken place on 07.02.2007. He was on a motorcycle when the motorcycle hit a truck coming from the opposite side; the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Compensation in the sum of '19,25,000/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants. Learned Tribunal had framed three issues. THE widow of the deceased had been examined as PW-1. She had tendered income tax returns of her husband for the assessment year 2005-06 reflecting his income on his business to be '1,27,956/-; income tax returns for the years 2006-07 had however not been placed on record. THEre was only one return; it had been verified from the Department and was found to be correct. On this basis, the average income of the deceased was computed to be '1 lac annually. PW-1 had deposed that her husband had a regular income; this aspect had been borne in mind by the Tribunal to grant future prospects which were rightly considered. A catena of judgment of this Court as reported in 2008 ACJ 2182 (Delhi) Kanwar Devi Vs. Bansal Roadways, 2007 ACJ 2165 (Delhi) Lekhraj Vs. Suram Singh and 2009 ACJ 1921 (Delhi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi have held so. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not having a business or that this business would not be continuing in the future. Future prospects were rightly awarded. This finding calls for no interference.