National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Alka and Others

This First Appeal from Order u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of an award of compensation given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj dated 29th September, 2012 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 82 of 2010 Smt. Alka and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, compensating the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased Sushil Dixit, who died in the accident while driving Indica Car No. U.P. 74C/4250 and returning from Delhi Metro Hospital carrying a dead body of the maternal uncle to Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj. The dead body was carried in another vehicle. The ill-fated Indica Car met with an accident with Truck No. HR 38E/1261. The Claim Petition was filed for an award of Rs. 45 lacs alleging that the deceased was 35 years'' old, Ayurvedic Doctor and was earning Rs. 40,000 per month. We have heard Mr. Saral Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

The Tribunal has, after considering the documentary and oral evidence, found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck and in which Shri Sushil Dixit, the husband of claimant No. 1, and Shri Shailendra Dixit suffered injuries and died on the spot.

On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal has not believed the documents, namely the certificate of medical practice of the deceased and the certificate of registration of ''Dixit Eye Hospital, Gursahaiganj'' and ''Dixit Eye Hospital, Ganga Dham, Bilgram'' on the ground that these documents were filed after the statement of the claimant-widow was recorded. The Tribunal also did no assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the income tax return of Dixit Eye Hospital, Gursahaiganj on the ground that the individual income tax of the deceased was not disclosed in the income tax returns. The Tribunal thereafter, taking into consideration that the deceased was an Ayurvedic doctor and was working in two clinics, assessed his monthly income at Rs. 6,000 and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, assessed the dependency at Rs. 4,000 per month. It applied the multiplier of 17 on the age of the deceased at 35 years to arrive at compensation of Rs. 8,16,000 for loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000 for loss to the claimant wife for matrimonial happiness, Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses.

Mr. Saral Srivastava, appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that there was no evidence led with regard to the income of the deceased. The documents relating to the certificate of practice of the deceased were filed after the statement of claimant was recorded. The income tax returns related to the eye hospital run by the mother of the deceased, in which the separate income of the deceased was not disclosed. He further submits that in the accident involving two vehicles the Tribunal has not assessed and quantified the contributory negligence.

We do not find any substance in the submission with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, inasmuch as it was not denied nor the plaintiff''s witnesses were cross-examined to doubt their statements that the deceased was a registered medical practitioner working as eye specialist in the two clinics. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal, that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, there was no question nor any evidence was led by the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company to consider the question of contributory negligence.

In our opinion, the income of the deceased as an Ayurvedic medical practitioner, working in two clinics has been assessed on a lower side. The income of Rs. 4,000 per month amounts to notional income of a professional of whose employment could not be proved. The award is reasonable and fair and does not require any interference.

The First Appeal from Order is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within a month.