GULAMRASUL MOHAMMED SAIYED Vs. RAMASHANKAR SITARAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Tolia for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Palak H. Thakkar for the respondent no.3. Perused the record.

(2.) Appellants herein are original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 2127 of 2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad wherein claimants have claimed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for death of wife of appellant no.1 and mother of appellants no.2 and 3. Since, neither owner nor insurance company of vehicle involved in the accident has challenged such award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of the opponents to pay compensation to the claimants. It is undisputed fact that when deceased victim Zahiraben Saiyad was traveling on Scooter No.GJ-15 J-6859 as pillion rider with her husband - appellant no.1 herein on 22.03.2002 on National Highway No.8, near Gulistan Hotel at Village - Parnera Pardi one Truck trailer no.DN 09 961 which came with full speed and in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the life of others and dashed the scooter on its back side and thereby, there was no contribution in accident by the victim. Because of such impact the deceased victim was fallen down from the scooter and truck had run away from her body which resulted into instant death.

(3.) The claimants have contended in the claim petition that deceased victim was 44 years aged lady and doing art work of clothes by tailoring and knitting and earning Rs.1,16,185/- per annum and she was also paying income tax and having PAN No.AOQPS 4402-Q. Therefore, claimants have claiming Rs.9,00,000/-. They have produced several documentary evidence at Exh.23 to 26 in addition to oral evidence by appellant no.1 at Exh.22. The appellant has also produced other relevant documents regarding investigation, P.M.Note and insurance policy etc. on record which are not much material at this stage. If we perused the documentary evidence produced on record by claimant, it becomes clear that deceased victim was paying income tax well before the date of accident, she was having permanent account assigned by the Income-Tax Department, copy of which is produced at Exh.23. Whereas at Exhs.24 and 25 being printout and computation of total income for the purpose for financial year 1999-2000 categorically confirms that deceased had earned Rs.43,020/- in such previous year whereas in the financial year 2000-2001, she had earned Rs.67580/- and therefore, she has disclosed such income in her Income-tax return, copy which is produced at Exh.26. It is quite, clear and obvious that date of incident is 23.03.2002 whereas such computation of income and tax return were submitted to the Income-tax Department in the month of November 2001 i.e. 5 months before date of accident and there is no reason to discard such evidence or to doubt it as done by the Tribunal without proper evidence but purely on assumption based upon account produced by the claimants presuming that with minimum investment that cannot be said good business. It cannot be ignored that so far as art-work so also professional work is concerned, there can be huge income even there is no investment or minimum investment. It can also not be ignored that when deceased has already disclosed her income, well before the date of accident as Rs.67580/-. There is no reason to disbelieve such income by mere presumption or assumption as done by the Tribunal in impugned award. The scrutiny of the impugned award goes to show that though tribunal has referred all such documentary evidence in detail in paragraph no.12 of the judgment, unfortunately, the Tribunal has observed that there cannot be a good profit when investment is quite less, this is not a valid reason to discard the documentary evidence that too from a public record to confirm that deceased victim was earning Rs.67,000/- per year. Even if it may be argued that such disclosure of income before income tax department is voluntary by the person and therefore, it may not be correct, the fact remains that in the present case such disclosure is well in advance before actual date of accident and therefore, there is no reason to doubt about such disclosure. Thereby, by all means, it is clear that deceased was earning approximately Rs.6000/- per month.