Judgment:
FAO No.3784 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3784 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision: March 14, 2014. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Versus Geeta Devi and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. No Present: Dr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate and Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ***** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 15.02.2012 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for wrongly accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month when there was no cogent evidence in this regard.
2. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, though, notice had been given to them in November, 2012. The respondents were then proceeded ex-parte. Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3784 of 2012 (O&M) -2- 3. The counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased Dharmender was stated to be a Supervisor with Malwa Sweets, Samrala and his income was stated to be Rs.6,000/- per month and the Tribunal relied on the certificate Ex.PA which was on a plain paper, could not have been accepted and in the absence of evidence, the income of a labourer should have been taken. It was urged that Kuldeep Singh CW1 had appeared and had introduced a hand written certificate without any supportive document specially when no books of account were produced by the employer.
4. There has been no representation on behalf of the respondents, though the matter had been listed a number of times.
5. I have gone through the record and find that Kuldeep Singh who had appeared as a witness for the claimants had stated that deceased was working with him as a Supervisor and was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. This witness had not brought any record to show that he was a partner of the firm or had engaged a number of employees. No books of account were produced. Though, the witness had stated that he was in possession of bill books and was paying income-tax. The witness had admitted that he did not issue letter of appointment in favour of Dharmender.
6. A fact had come on record that Dharmender had studied up to 5th standard. The Tribunal could not have taken the income to be Rs.6,000/- per month accepting the bare statement of CW1, therefore, the minimum wages that were being paid in the year 2010 should have been taken into consideration. In the year 2010, the minimum wages of a skilled labourer were Rs.4,037/- per month. As per the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3784 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2012(2) RCR(Civil) 882, some amount towards future expenses were also to be added and considering the age, it would be 50% of the income and if an addition of 50% is made certainly the income would even then be over Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the award. The appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE March 14, 2014 sunil Sunil 2014.03.21 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document