UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SONIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the First Appeal preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the ' M.V. Act '] by the Appellant - Insurance Company against the Judgment and Order / Award dtd. 28/12/2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani [hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal'], in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.338/2012 [hereinafter referred to as the 'MACP'], awarding the compensation of Rs.1,01,47,500.00 [One Crore One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of MACP till realization of the compensation amount against the Insurance Company and the Owner of motor vehicle.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under :-

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant - pInsurance Company that, the Accident took place due to contributory negligence of the Deceased. The Driver of the said Tempo was not joined as the party Respondent in the MACP. The Driver of the said Tempo was not examined to prove the findings of negligence, which is must. The Income of Deceased shown by the Claimants was disputed. In the First Information Report [For short 'F.I.R.'], it was mentioned that, the Deceased ran a JCB Office and the aspect of Job of Deceased as Teacher was introduced later to exaggerate the claim. The Salary Certificate format was prepared to claim high compensation. No Appointment Order and Approval Order in respect of the Employment of Deceased were brought on record. Being the Teacher, the Salary must have been paid through Bank Account and no Bank Account details were brought on record. Hence, the Salary Certificate be discarded. The deduction should have been 1/3rd from the Income of Deceased, the addition of 50% towards Future Income was incorrect, as there was no proof of permanent Employment of the Deceased. There was no proof of agricultural Income. 30% deduction should have been made from the Income of Deceased. Only the Income shown in the I.T.Rs..00should have been considered. The Father of Deceased was an agriculturist, therefore, there was no question of Deceased cultivating the land. In support of his contentions, he relied on the Judgments, which would be considered in the later part of this Judgment. Considering the evidence available on record, the Appeal of Insurance Company be allowed.