IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC App No.725/2005 & CM No.12361/2005 Judgment delivered on: January 29, 2008 Smt. Sunder Devi ..... Appellant. Through: Ms.Sushila Ram, Advocate. versus Shri Kirat Singh Rawal & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.S.S. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: * By way of this application, the appellant seeks to MAC App No.725/2005 Page 1 of 6 bring on record copy of the income tax returns for the assessment year 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002- 2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. No reply to the said application has been filed by the contesting respondent, insurance company. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was the proprietor of M/s. Sunder Agencies, Kota and partner of M/s. Sunder Company, Kota and worked with her husband in Evergreen Chamber, Delhi and from all these three sources she was having a regular income. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that even before the Tribunal, income tax order for the assessment year 1998-1999 showing an income of the appellant at Rs.56,540/- was placed on record but the Tribunal has returned a wrong finding in last para of page 12 of the award, holding that the appellant failed to corroborate her earnings by proving her income with the help of income tax returns and documents of partnership business. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the Tribunal also got over-influenced by certain blank columns in the claim petition which were left blank primarily due to MAC App No.725/2005 Page 2 of 6 omission on the part of the typist. Counsel further contends that in the written statement filed by the respondent, there is a clear reference to the income of Rs.7,000/- as was pleaded in the claim petition by the appellant. Counsel further contends that in the amended petition, the appellant had corrected the figure of income but the Tribunal did not take into consideration the said correction on the ground that the appellant was allowed limited amendment only to correct the verification of the petition and not to fill the figure in para 7 of the amended petition. Per contra, counsel for the respondent contends that the appellant cannot be allowed to prove her case by producing the income tax returns of the subsequent years at this belated stage. Counsel further contends that the appellant herself failed to disclose her income in the claim petition and failed to prove her income in accordance with law. Counsel thus, contends that there is no merit in the present application. Counsel further contends that the appellant has failed to give any sufficient reasons nor has shown exercise of any kind of due diligence on her part in not taking appropriate MAC App No.725/2005 Page 3 of 6 steps in proving her income before the Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Although the appellant failed to prove her income on record as by simply placing a document on record, the appellant cannot claim that such a document stands proved on record. In any event of the matter, since authenticity and genuineness of such income tax order cannot be doubted, therefore, I feel that the interest of justice will be best served if the appellant is allowed to prove her income with the help of income tax orders and other supporting documents. It also appears that the Tribunal got unnecessarily carried away with the columns left blank in the relevant para of the claim petition wherein only three zeroes were mentioned. It is a settled legal position that the approach of Claims Tribunal while trying compensation cases should be different in comparison when trying civil cases. The procedural condrums and hyper technicalities have no place in the summary enquiry as envisaged under Section 168 of the M.V. Act. Human compassion, speedier justice and grant of just compensation MAC App No.725/2005 Page 4 of 6 are the only principles to be kept in mind by the Tribunals while trying compensation cases. The Tribunal should have permitted the appellant to add the figure by way of amending the petition or even during the course of hearing itself, more particularly when there was sufficient material available on record to support that the appellant was a proprietor/partner in some partnership business. In the light of the above discussion, I, therefore, feel that it is a fit case which should be remitted back to the Tribunal so as to give fresh opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and to prove her income from the sources already disclosed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The appellant is also allowed to place on record the additional documents for proving her income. The appellant is also permitted to amend her petition by inserting word 7 in the relevant column so as to show that she was earning Rs.7,000/- from her given sources. The appellant is also aggrieved with other findings of the Tribunal but since the matter is being remitted back for fresh determination on the issue of income, the other grounds MAC App No.725/2005 Page 5 of 6 of challenge raised by the appellant shall remain open to the appellant at the time of challenging the final award. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. Since the appellant is of 60-62 years of age, it is expected that the Tribunal shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than within a period of three months. The appellant shall also adduce her evidence not later than two dates given by the Tribunal in this regard. With these directions, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 12.2.2008. January 29, 2008 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J ga MAC App No.725/2005 Page 6 of 6