(1.) The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 14,40,943 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for the death of Hari Om who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.2.2009. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company; thus the same has attained finality.
(2.) On the quantum of compensation, the Respondents' case was that the deceased was an agriculturist and he was earning Rs. 20,000 per month from agriculture and Rs. 15,000 per month from the business of dairy farming. Anita (PW1), the deceased's widow, had sworn an affidavit with regard to this income. She failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to this income. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning this amount. She admitted that her husband was not an Income Tax assessee. In the Assessment year 2009-10, any income beyond Rs. 1,50,000 was subject to Income Tax. Even if, an income of Rs. 2,40,000, claimed to be from agriculture, was exempted, the deceased was under an obligation to pay Income Tax on the remaining income of Rs. 1,80,000 on a higher slab after making an addition in the income from agriculture.
(3.) Otherwise also, it is difficult to believe that deceased Hari Om had any income from agriculture. The only ground on which the income from agriculture was claimed was that Ved Prakash (the deceased's father) owned certain lands in village Narela. Admittedly, Ved Prakash had one more son in addition to the deceased. No evidence was led by the Respondents to prove that during his lifetime, Ved Prakash had given the land to the deceased Hari Om and not to the other son. No evidence was led to prove the amount spent on agricultural operations and the yield obtained. In the circumstances, it was not possible to determine the deceased's income on the ground that he was engaged in agriculture or was in dairy business.