Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd APPELLANT @Hash Rakesh Kumar And Others

Sanjeev Kumar, J

In MA 311/2017, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') has assailed the award dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in file No. 86 titled 'Rakesh Kumar vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd and others' whereby respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') has been held entitled to a sum of Rs.19,85,982/-.

In this appeal, the insurer has raised a dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant, at the time of accident, was receiving 30,000/- per month as salary. It is submitted that no proof with regard to the salary of the claimant was brought on record and, therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in accepting the income of the claimant as Rs.30,000/-.

Per contra, Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the claimant submits that not only the original salary certificate of the claimant was placed on record, but the same was also proved by producing PW Nawaz Sharief, an Accountant cum Clerk in the office of M/S JMB Building and Traders, Pathankote (employer of the claimant). In his statement, he clearly deposed that the claimant was initially engaged on the monthly salary of Rr.25000/- which was later increased to Rs.30,000/-.

It is true and I am in agreement with learned counsel for the insurer that had the injured been receiving Rs.30,000/- per month, then his income would have been in the income tax net and the claimant ought to have produced income tax return. It is equally true that the insurer has not put any question to the claimant in this regard, nor has solicited the production of income tax return or the relevant record from the office of M/S JMB Building and Traders. However, taking into consideration the nature of evidence on record, it would be safe to take the income of the claimant as Rs.20,000/-per month. The claimant was 35 years old at the time of accident and, therefore, an addition on account of future prospects should have been made at the rate of 40%, but the Tribunal has erroneously made the addition of 50% of the income of the claimant. To that extent, the impugned award needs to be corrected.

However, I find no infirmity with regard to the finding of the Tribunal in assessing the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 15% having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the nature of job he is supposed to perform to earn his livelihood.

For the foregoing reasons, the award is modified to the following extent.

Loss of future income Rs.806400/-(4200x12x16)

Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-

Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-

Expenditure for two attendances Rs.40,000/-

Expenses on medicine Rs.5,57,982

Transport charges Rs.30,000/-

Diet expenses Rs.7000/-

Total Rs.15,41,382/-

MA 311/2017 and CCROS 22/2017 are disposed of in the above terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount shall carry pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Registry to release the amount deposited in favour of the claimant in the terms of the modified award after proper identification and verification. The excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.