FAO No.5302 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5302 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 13.11.2009 Reliance General Insurance Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Savitri Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the award dated 30.07.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.26,0700/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% in favour of the claimants- respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondents No.5 and 6 on account of the death of Gauri Dutt Bairagi in a motor vehicular accident. The only dispute raised by the appellant is regarding the income of the deceased and quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants on the basis of said monthly income. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a General Manager (Sales) in M/s Emco Presmaster Private Limited and was drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. PW4 Gulshan Kapoor, being the employee in M/s Emco Presmaster Private Limited, while appearing in the witness box disclosed that the deceased was working as General Manager (Sales) at a monthly salary of Rs.27,000/-. To the contrary, RW1 Sanjeev Arora, Investigator of the insurance company disclosed that from his investigation it came out that his monthly income was Rs.8600/- per month in the year 2005-2006. He stated that he has made the statement on the investigation from the Company's FAO No.5302 of 2009 2 Officer as well as the income tax returns. It may be observed that on critical analysis of the statement of two witnesses, it transpires that Mr.Sanjeev Arora RW1 though has stated that he visited the Company and on inquiries from the employees of the Company he came to know that the income of the deceased in the year 2005-2006 was Rs.8600/- per month. Yet none of the witness to whom it had consulted and none of the persons from the Company alongwith the salary record was examined by the appellant in order to prove the income of the deceased. The less income shown in the income tax returns hardly prove that he was drawing that much salary. To the contrary, the claimants have produced the academic certificates Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 revealing that the deceased was a qualified technician and consultant of the Company. PW4 Gulshan Kapoor being the accountant in the Company, as per record stated that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. It is nowhere stated that the deceased was not the employee of M/s Emco Pressmaster Private Limited and not receiving monthly salary of Rs.27,000/- at the time of accident. In any case, even if he was drawing a monhly salary of Rs.8600/- in the year 2004-2005 for which he filed the income tax returns at that rate then he could be promoted or his salary could be accelerated as proved by PW4 Gulshan Kapoor. The deceased was about 47 years of age at the time of accident and his income with the passage of time would have been accelerated due to his further promotion and attaining more experience and capability. The claimants i.e. dependents of the deceased are four in number and the the Tribunal should have applied a cut of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards his own dependency but I am not sitting in appeal over the judgment preferred by the claimants, as such I do not want to interfere qua this aspect of this case. However, I must say that the income of the deceased was properly assessed by the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.11.2009 mamta-II