SOMWATI SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. MUSTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Gurgaon had passed an order on 23.11.2012, whereby the appellants were granted a compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- on account of the death of Hukam Chand alias Harish in the roadside accident on 17.10.2011. The appellants have now come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount on different grounds.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants argued that income was absolutely wrongly assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs.4,000/- per month ignoring the evidence led by the appellants to prove that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month on account of his employment with Mohan Sharma who had appeared in the witness box. It was contended that as per the income tax returns for the period ending 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011, the annual salary of Rs.1,20,000/- being paid to the deceased by Mohan Sharma of M/s Mohan Ghee Store, was depicted. It was submitted that at the time of filing the returns, Mohan Sharma did not know that Hukam Chand would die and, therefore, the information and corroborative documents could not be manipulated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, argued that the Tribunal had discussed in detail that the appellants had failed to prove the income of the deceased because Mohan Sharma appearing as PW6 had stated that earlier he was paying Rs.6,000/- to Hukam Chand, who was later on was drawing Rs.10,000/- per month. He did not know as to from which date the salary was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Also he mentioned in his cross examination that he had no proof of employment and payment of salary. He did not have any idea even regarding his own income. The statement of the witness was, therefore, correctly not believed by the Tribunal.