Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha and Shri S.S. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.
This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 01.08.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/10th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 162 of 1998.
It is submitted that claimants are widow mother of the deceased, wife and two dependents. At the time of accident age of the deceased was 35 years. His income has been wrongly construed @ Rs.1,500/- per month though he was runninghis own bhajan mandali and having passport to travel abroad and therefore, his income be construed to be Rs.10,000/- in place of Rs.1,500/- as has been taken into consideration by the learned claims Tribunal.
It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded under the head of future prospect and even wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned claims Tribunal.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha and Shri S.S. Shukla opposes and submit that there is no infirmity in the impugned award calling for any interference.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that copy of passport has been enclosed but no visahas been brought on record. Therefore, there is no proof of deceased having income from foreign countries.Mere invitation to travel to foreign countries is not sufficient proof of having income from a foreign country so to construe income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Even this assertion of income is not proved from the copy of pass book of the deceased made available on record by the learned counsel for the appellant wherein there are withdrawals in the range of Rs.1,500/- per month but deposits are too meagre to show that deceased was having income of Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in a letter of offer issued by one Ontario Khalsa Darbar INC there is a mention of passport number of the deceased and date of birth as 12.02.1963. Date of accident is 28.02.1998, therefore, deceased had completed age of 35 years on the date of accident, therefore, multiplier 15 will be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case and not that of 16 as claimed by learned counsel for the appellant.Salary certificate produced from Thikana Bhai Aya Ramji showing salary of Rs.6,000/- is not corroborated with any documentary evidence and is therefore, cannot be accepted as income of the deceased. All these documents have been prepared after the date of accident and are not admissible in the eyes of law, especially when they have not been substituted with any cogent evidence. Thus computation of the compensation is to be made taking into consideration income as has been taken by the learned claims Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per annum. When 1/4th is deducted towards living expenses of the deceased annual dependency comes out to Rs.13,500/-. Over and above 40% is added towards future prospects then annual dependency will come out to Rs.18,900/- on which multiplier of 15 will be applicable, taking total pecuniary compensation to the tune of Rs.2,83,500/-. Over and above this a sum of Rs.70,000/- is added under non-pecuniary head taking total compensation to Rs.3,53,500/- (rupees three lakhs fifty three thousand and five hundred only) in place of Rs.1,99,800/- (rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand and eight hundred only). Thus there will be an addition of Rs.1,53,700/- (rupees one lakh fifty three thousand and seven hundred only) which shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been awarded by learned claims Tribunal.
In above terms, the appeal is disposed off.
Tribunal's record be sent back forthwith.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021/VS