Judgment:
ORDER
Khan, (J)
1. One Sardar Malkiat Singh, 28, working in a partnership firm was killed in a road accident on 20.11.1968. His LRs filed claim suit no.15/1970 and claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs. But MACT worked out the dependency of the deceased at Rs.200/- and applied a multiplier of 32 to award compensation of Rs.37,400/- with 6% interest after making some deductions. Out of this, Insurer was only made liable to pay Rs.20,00/- as its liability was found limited to that extent. Claimants felt dissatisfied and filed FAO 178/1975 for enhancement of compensation and for declaration that liability of the Insurer was unlimited. First Appellate Court reassessed the income of the deceased at Rs.600/- per month and determined the dependency at Rs.400/- and left the multiplier of 32 intact and awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,600/- with 6% interest payable from March 1970 till payment.
2. On the other issue i.e. Insurer's extent of liability, First Appellate Court found that Insurance company had not taken the specific plea of limited liability in its written statement and had not produced even a carbon copy of Insurance Company to support its plea on limited liability. It accordingly upset the Tribunal finding that the company liability was limited to Rs.20,000/- and held it to be unlimited.
3. Appellant feels aggrieved and has filed this appeal. Claimants have also filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation on the ground that both Tribunal and First Appellate Court had found that deceased was a income tax payee and had filed return for Rs.17,000/- in 1967. It is submitted that if that alone was taken to be the only gross income of deceased and 1/3rd was deducted for his personal expenses, the dependency would work out much higher resulting in enhancement of the compensation.
4. L/C for appellant Mr. Sabharwal has drawn our attention to the copy of written statement filed by Insurance Company in opposition to the claimant's claim suit. We have examined it and we found that it was signed by company's counsel and not by any one of its competent authority. thereforee,m it remained to be seen whether it was worth being taken in regard, more so, for the purpose of plea of limited liability which was not specific ally taken. It is also admitted position that appellant company had not taken any steps to place any certified or carbon copy of the Insurance Company policy on record during trial or before the First Appellate Court. thereforee, the company's liability was not established to be limited and Tribunal had misdirected itself by treating it to be limited to Rs.20,000/- under Section 95 of Old M.V. Act. It was also too late in the day for the company to place on record a photostat copy purported to be that of Insurance Policy Along with or during the pendency of this LPA which was not liable to be entertained for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not as of right that a party could place any document on record at his choice and convenience. He would have to satisfy certain requirements and conditions for that, one of which would be to explain away his default earlier and also to show that it would not affect the other party's interest even at this belated stage.
5. In the present case none of these conditions exist and granting such a request would tantamount to granting a license to Insurer to take out a copy of the Policy from its shelf and to place it on record in disregard of rules of procedure regulating the subject. This, in our view, could not be allowed more so at LPA stage when party had admittedly failed to produce the document before Tribunal and First Appellate Court.
6. We accordingly find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
7. Cross-objections filed by claimants (respondents) also meet the same fate and are rejected. We had no difficulty in working out the dependency on the basis of Rs.17,000/- gross income as evidenced by the income tax return of the deceased but in that case, higher multiplier of 32 would not sustain and was liable to be reduced. thereforee, we deem it appropriate to rest the matter at that and to affirm the compensation awarded by First Appellate Court which was just and reasonable in the circumstances.
8. Considering that respondents had been pursuing their claim since 1970, they deserve to be awarded a better rate of interest than 6%. We would thereforee, like to raise this to 12% but accruable only on the enhanced compensation amount awarded by First Appellate Court from the date of filing of FAO 178/1975 to that of payment. Appellant-Insurance company would work out the remaining amount at this rate and pay it to respondents within four months from receipt of this order.