IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.89 of 2003 MOST.SUNAINA DEVI, Wife of Late Ram Vilash Singh, Resident of village Kool, Post Nalanda, District Nalanda … Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ulaveria Branch, through Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Naj Cinema Road, Bihar Sharif (Nalanda) 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Bihar Sharif Branch, Naj Cinema Road, Biharsharif, Nalanda … Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 14. 5.5.2009 Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. The appellant, the widow of Late Ramvilash Singh, is aggrieved by the quantum of amount of compensation in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant with reference to the authentic records of the Government would submit that the determination of age and income has been incorrectly made which in turn has led to a very low amount of compensation. Admittedly the deceased Ramvilash Singh, the husband of the appellant, was a Government servant who had entered in Government service after declaration of his age in matriculation certificate. That is clear from Annexure 1, a photo copy of first page of the service book which shows the 2 date of birth of the deceased Ramvilash Singh to be 21st of August, 1948. As the service book mentioned that Ramvilash Singh was matriculate the original certificate of matriculation by itself was clinching evidence to determine the age of the deceased Ramvilash Singh. As with regard to income of the said Government servant his controlling officer has issued his last pay certificate showing total emolument of Rs. 4581/- per month in the month of June, 1996. As the deceased met his unfortunate accident in the month of July, 1996 the said salary statement could again be treated to be conclusive evidence on his income. Counsel for respondents no. 3 and 5, Insurance Company, however, submits that these evidence were not led by the appellant before the Tribunal and as such, the finding of the Tribunal either with regard to income of Rs. 3200/- per month or with regard to age on the basis of postmortem report cannot be questioned now. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the apppellant replying to the 3 said submission, would submit that as the authenticity of these two documents is not in doubt, this Court could itself take those documents by way of additional evidence in exercise of power u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act and redetermine the case. This Court has noted that the Tribunal itself had found the luck-lustre approach of the appellant to be solely responsible for not allowing it to record its finding either with regard to age or income. At the same time, this Court by taking into consideration that the widow appellant was handicapped in getting their documents in time for its being filed in evidence after the catastrophe in her life on account of the unfortunate accident killing her husband, would give one indulgence to her to bring these documents in evidence. The ends of justice therefore would require rehearing of the claim case filed by the appellant wherein the respondent Insurance Company will also be at liberty to adduce any further evidence on the issue of age and/or income of the 4 deceased. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal with a clarification that if the appellant produces matriculation certificate in original and the proof of income by way of the salary statement issued by the Block Development Officer, Bihar Sharif in original, the same shall be taken on record by the Tribunal by way of additional evidence and thereafter the Tribunal will do the needful andpass fresh order without disturbing any other finding. In nut-shell only the age and income will be redetermined as per the aforesaid two documents and its rebuttal by the Insurance Company. Such exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will not be entitled for any interest on any additional amount awarded beyond Rs. 1,29,200/- because such additional amount which now if becomes payable to her would be only on account of 5 laches on the part of the appellant herself as she had earlier failed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal at the relevant point of time. It is thus made clear that the sum of Rs. 1,29,200/- would only qualify for payment of interest and as the counsel for the Insurance Company says that the entire amount has already been paid with interest as awarded in the impugned award, the appellant shall be entitled for payment of interest only on the further amount awarded by the Tribunal in terms of this order if the same is not paid within a period of three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal only to the aforementioned extent, is allowed. There would be however no order as to costs. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/