NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LEKHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.4.2008, passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gautam Budh Nagar. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the claim petition was filed after a period of six months and no number of the vehicle was known at the time of accident when the first information report was lodged immediately on the next date of the accident. However, the police investigation was made, the vehicle was found out and the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver before the appropriate criminal court of the competent jurisdiction. Therefore, we cannot accept any ground with regard to non-involvement of the vehicle.

(2.) SO far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal held that as per the salary certificate the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,213 but after deducting loan instalment he was taking home a sum of Rs. 7,812, which the Tribunal ultimately rounded up to Rs. 7,800 as per monthly salary and upon giving deduction even thereafter arrived at the compensation of Rs. 9,66,000. Firstly, the insurance company contended that the income was Rs. 7,812 as held by the Tribunal. According to us, it is misreading of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company because the salary is Rs. 12,213 per month as per the certificate. Any deduction on account of loan is also part of the salary. Therefore, the Tribunal itself came to a finding that the salary will be considered as Rs. 7,800 and upon giving deduction awarded the compensation, which should be held on the lower side but not on the higher side. The insurance company further contended before this Court that when the Tribunal has followed the Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), the quantum of income should be within the highest limit of such Schedule, i.e., Rs. 40,000 per annum not beyond that, and in support of his contention learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Manjula Devi Mishra and others v. Commercial Motors, Kanpur and others, 2007 (2) AWC 2050. The relevant portion of such judgment is as follows :

(3.) INCIDENTALLY, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant, however, such prayer is allowed.