HDFC AGRO GENERAL INSURANCE Vs. PANDHARI KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vaman Kurtikar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. A. D. Bhobe learned counsel for the respondents- claimants.

(2.) This appeal challenges the judgment and award dtd. 28/10/2015 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.47/2014 awarding the claimant compensation of 15,99,685/- together with interest at the rate of 9% Rs. per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

(3.) Mr. Kurtikar learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the appellants were restricting the challenges in this appeal to the quantum of compensation awarded. He submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the claimant was employed as a heavy vehicle driver by CRG Marketing or any other employer. He points out that the certificate produced by the claimant was dtd. 1/2/2014 when the accident, in this case, took place on 16/6/2011. He submitted that there are inherent inconsistencies in the deposition of Cajetan George (AW4), the alleged employer. He pointed out that no order of appointment was produced nor were any salary certificates for the period between 2008-2011 produced. He pointed out that the wage register was not produced and there is no reflection of any payment in the income tax returns, which in any case were not produced. He pointed out that even the license for driving the heavy vehicle was not produced. He submitted that despite all these lacunae the tribunal ought not to have accepted the claimant's case about his monthly income being 8000/- per month or that the Rs. claimant was indeed employed as a heavy vehicle driver.