1. This appeal is finally heard in terms of order dated 20th December, 2017, whereby early hearing of the appeal was granted. By this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged judgment and order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – 3, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 1111 of 2009.

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 15.10.2009, when the husband of respondent No.1 was travelling on his motor cycle from Nagpur to Katol Road, he met with an accident with a Bolero Jeep, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, the husband of respondent No.1 died on the spot. An FIR was registered against the driver of the said Bolero Jeep.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 5, being the widow, children and parents of the deceased, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty-five lakhs only). The said respondents claimed that the deceased, at the time of his death, was 32 years old and he was by profession a Shuttering/Centering Contractor and that he was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.29,000/- per month. In order to support their claim of income of the deceased, the said respondents placed on record Certificate of Contractor ship (Exh.51), Statements of Accounts (Exh.52) and TDS Certificates (Exh.53) issued by one M/s Agni Infrastructures, who had taken the services of the deceased.

4. The respondent No.1, widow of the deceased, deposed in support of the claim petition. The Tribunal took into consideration the said material on record and it found that even as per the evidence of respondent No.1, it was only the said M/s Agni Infrastructures with which the deceased was found to be working. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient material on record to support the claims of respondents/claimants that the deceased was working as contractor for other parties also. The Tribunal found that although the Certificate of Contractor ship (Exh51), Statements of Accounts and Ledgers (Exh.52) and TDS Certificates (Exh53) were on record, in absence of Income Tax Returns of the deceased, the said documents could not be relied upon to depict the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

5. The Tribunal found that at the earliest point of time in the claim petition, the respondent No.1 had claimed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/- per month. On this basis, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal then applied the deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses (as there were five dependents on the deceased) and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.29,73,000/-, including amounts towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of care and guidance to the minor children.

6. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Tribunal is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The appellant/Insurance Company, has disputed the quantum of compensation on the basis that the monthly income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the Tribunal.

7. Shri A. J. Pophaly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the spot panchnama on record did not show that there was any negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and that it could be said that the deceased himself was also equally negligent and hence responsible for the accident. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/-per month, only on the basis of statement of respondent No.1, without any documentary evidence on record. The learned Counsel submitted that the documents at Exhs. 51 to 53, referred to by the Tribunal, were wholly unreliable documents and, therefore, there was no material to ascertain the monthly income of the deceased.