NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PARVINDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 1-S/2 of 2013, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.29,85, 568.00 alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing or the appellant/insurer, (i) does not contest, the validity of affirmative findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue, appertaining to the relevant accident, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by Prithvi Singh, respondent No.5 herein, (ii) also the postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW2/A, proven by PW-2, supports the factum, of, the demise of the afore, being sparked, by the injuries sustained by him, in the accident hence involving the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.5 herein.

(3.) However, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended (i) that the per mensem income, of the deceased, as, stands computed in a sum of Rs.13,042.00, and, with, computation thereof, being anvilled, upon, mark-A, mark whereof, is a copy of income tax return, filed by the deceased, rather being stained with a vice, of, infirmity given (a) the afore mark not being proven in accordance with law, (b) and, no supportive document standing appended therewith, in personification of the income tax return, filed by the deceased, appertaining to his deriving income, from his running, a tea shop, under certificates/licences, respectively borne in Ex.PW3/B, and, in Ex.PW3/C, (c) thereupon, no reliance was assignable thereto nor any derivation of income, by the deceased, from, his afore pleaded avocation, enjoys any formidable evidentiary worth or probative vigour. However, the afore contention as addressed, before this Court, (d) is, blunted by the factum qua Mark-A, being tendered, during, the course of examination-in-chief of PW-3, (e) and, when thereafter, the appellant, had, the opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, and, when thereat, it was also befitting for the learned counsel, for the insurer, appearing before the learned tribunal, to, elicit from income tax department, all documents appended therewith, (f) and, also to elicit original of Mark A. However, all, the afore endeavours remained evidently unrecoursed, by the counsel for the insurer, thereupon, an inference, is, sparked qua hence Mark-A, being acquiesced by the appellant. More so, when only upon the afore evidence being elicited, by the counsel for the insurer, a concomitant conclusion, was hence drawable qua Mark-A, rather being doctored, and, invented, (g) and, whereas, omission(s) whereof when construed in coagulation, with, the deceased, being issued licences, borne in Ex.PW3/B, and, in Ex.PW3/C, thereupon, a firm conclusion, is engendered qua the returns of income, enclosed in Mark A, rather appertaining to the income, derived by the deceased, from, his running a tea stall, rather, under the afore valid licences being granted to him, by the authorities concerned, (h) besides, reiteratedly, when hence the reflections borne therein, dehors it, not comprising the original, hence assume an aura of solemnity or sanctity, thereupon, assigning of vigour thereto, is, merit worthy.