RITA DEVI Vs. ASHISH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants/appellants herein, have, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, they, seek enhancement of compensation, as assessed, vis-a-vis, them, under, the impugned award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 20/2015, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.10, 12,400/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, them, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/ respondent No.3 herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants herein has contended with much vigour (i) that despite the claimants hence averring, in, the petition qua their predecessor-in-interest, working, as a motor mechanic, for, the last more, than 12 years, in Sunny Automobile, and, his drawing therefrom hence per mensem salary, borne, in, a sum of Rs.12,000/-, (iii) AND also the claimant concerned, as also the owner of the afore entity, rendering apt testifications, in, tandem therewith, and, also adducing into evidence, the, salary certificate borne in Ex.PW4/A, (iv) hence, the afore per mensem rearings, of, income by the deceased, rather was enjoined to borne in mind, by the learned tribunal concerned, (v) whereas, the learned tribunal concerned, rather discarding the afore apposite testified claim, and, its taking into consideration, the, minimum wages of a unskilled worker, for, hence calculating the per mensem income, of, the deceased, has, rather under-assessed, compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer, has contended, with great enthusiasm before this Court, that no reliance, can be placed, upon, Ex.PW4/A, by the learned tribunal, for, garnering therefrom, the income of the deceased, in a sum of Rs.12,000/- per mensem, as, it is fictitiously drawn, and, also for want of adduction into evidence, rather the salary register or attendance register hence renders it, to beget the stain of fraudulence. However, the afore contention addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the insurer, is, grossly unmeritworthy, as, PW-4, Sunny Kumar, the owner of Sunny Automobile, whereat the deceased was working, as, a Motor Mechanic, while stepping into the witness box, and, during the course of his examination-in-chief, rather tendered into evidence, Ex.PW4/A, (a) and, upon his being subjected, to, the ordeal, of, a scathing cross- examination, by the counsel, for the insurer, yet during course(s) whereof, (b) no suggestion stood meted, to him, with any articulation therein qua PW-4 not being authorised to prepare, and, draw Ex.PW4/A, (c) and, his not working with the entity concerned, (d) and, also with no suggestion being meted, to him qua Ex.PW4/A, not being issued, from any related thereto records, as, maintained with the entity concerned, especially, from, the, salary register or the attendance register. Furthermore, with no suggestion being meted to him, that, the afore register being also not maintained, with, the entity concerned, whereas, the meteings, of, afore suggestion(s), to PW-4, during, the course of his being held, to, cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the insurer, was a dire necessity, (e) for, hence thereafter ensuring rather upsurgings emanating from PW-4 either in affirmation or in contradiction(s), to, the afore suggestion(s), (f) and, when even thereafter PW-4 could also he constrained, to, through the aegis of the Court hence, produce the afore register(s), before the Court concerned, for rendering proof, qua Ex.PW4/A being ridden or not ridden, with any aura of fictitiousness. However, wants, of, all the afore endeavours, begets a conclusion, qua the counsel for the insurer, acquiescing qua Ex.PW4/A being issued by PW-4, while his obviously holding the capacity to issue it, (g) and, also its issuance emanating, from, all compatible therewith records, as, maintained at the afore entity.

(3.) Moreso, when thereafter, the counsel for the insurer, did not, make any strivings, to elicit the afore records, from the entity concerned. Consequently, it was inappropriate, for, the learned tribunal concerned, to not take into consideration, the, income of the deceased, as, borne in Ex.PW4/A, thereupon, the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,000/-, is enjoined to be computed, as the, per mensem income of the deceased, from, his apposite avocation, as a Motor Mechanic. Consequently, the per mensem income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.10,700/-.