MAC. APP. No.153/2011 Page 1 of 2 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 30,2011 + MAC.APP. 153/2011 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Adv. versus RASHMI SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Narender Sharma, Adv. for R-5. Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, Adv. for R-6. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. for R-9. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL J U D G M E N T % G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. APPL. No.3640/2011 in MAC. APP. No.153/2011 This is an application for additional evidence moved by the Appellant Insurance Company. The accident took place on 13.10.2008 and the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal on 18.12.2008. The Appellant’s case is that through its internal verification process the definite information was received that the driving licence placed on record by the driver had expired on 30.04.2007 and it was renewed only on 30.10.2008, hence the driver did not possess any valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 13.10.2008. No reason whatsoever, has been given as to why this verification report could not be produced before the Tribunal after the institution of the petition in December, 2008 and upto the date of arguments on 13.12.2010 i.e. for long two years. A party can be permitted to lead additional evidence where it is able to make out a case that such evidence was either not within its knowledge or could not be produced in spite of due diligence at the time when the decree against him was passed. No such case has been made out. The application is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed with cost of ` 5,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within 4 weeks. Copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The application stands disposed of. MAC. APP. No.153/2011 Page 2 of 2 MAC. APP. No.153/2011 The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns the award dated 13.12.2010 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (the Tribunal) awarded a compensation of `13,90,400/-. The Appellant’s contents are: i) the deceased’s income as per his last Income Tax Return i.e. `1,68,305/- was considered for the purpose of computation of dependency; which ought to have been done on the basis of the last three year’s income. ii) The driving licence of Respondent No.6 (Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) was fake as per the report now received by the Insurance Company and, therefore, the Respondent No.7 Inderjeet Singh, owner of the offending vehicle was primarily liable to pay the compensation; at least recovery rights ought to have been granted to the APPELLANT. During inquiry before the Tribunal, the deceased’s widow PW4 Smt. Rashmi Sharma by way of her affidavit Ex.PW4/A testified that the deceased Ajay Kumar was running his own photo studio in the name of Radhika Studio and earning `60,000/- per month. She proved the Income Tax Returns for the year 2006-07, 2007-08. The Tribunal did not believe the deceased’s income to be `60,000/- per month; accepted his income to be `1,68,305/- on the basis of the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2007-08;(the accident took place on 30.10.2008); deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses as the number of dependents was five and applied the multiplier of 11 as per the deceased’s age which was proved to be 51 years. The Tribunal awarded notional sum of `10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, `5,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/- towards loss of his estate. In my view, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Nothing was placed on record by the Appellant not to believe the deceased’s income as reflected in the Income Tax Return. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned award. The Appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee is fixed at `11,000/-. G.P. MITTAL, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2011 hs/pst