IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that documentary evidence, including salary slips and Form 16, is adequate for determining compensation in motor accident claims, and affirmed the entitlement of parents to compensation for loss of filial consortium following the death of a child.

JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company impugning the judgment and award dated 29th June 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, (the 'MACT/ 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.84 of 2015.

2. At the outset, Ms.Shalini Shankar, learned Counsel for the Appellant, would submit that, although before the Tribunal, the Appellant Insurance Company filed written statement and took defences including statutory defences with respect to driving license, non-joinder of party, however, on instructions, she submits that the Appellant Insurance Company is not denying that the deceased Mr.Anuj Nitin Dighe died in the motor vehicular accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor tanker bearing no.MH-43-U-4217 (the 'offending vehicle') by its driver, as held by the Tribunal, but is only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the Respondent claimants.

3. Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 and 14 of the impugned judgment and would submit that while arriving at the average monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.19,000/-per month, the Tribunal has not taken into account that no income tax return of the deceased was adduced in evidence. Learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of appointment letter, salary slips of the deceased for the period April to June 2014 or even Form 16 is not evidence which is satisfactory to hold that the average monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.19,000/- per month. In support, learned Counsel refers to the examination-in-chief of Mr.Abhishek Khopkar, Coordinator, HR, working with Convergys India Services Private Limited, the deceased's employer, who has stated that no income tax return of the deceased was adduced.

4. On the other hand, Ms.Varsha Chavan, learned Counsel for the Respondent claimants, would submit that although there is no income tax return produced in evidence but since the deceased was an employee of Convergys at Thane, receiving salary income for which pay slips, as mentioned above, have been adduced and proved, Form 16 containing the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) with respect to the TDS deducted on the salary paid to the deceased would be a sufficient document which can be relied on, and therefore, it was not necessary to adduce the income tax return. Learned Counsel would submit that it is clear from the affidavit of Abhishek Khopkar (AW2) as well as his examination-in-chief and the cross-examination that the salary slips for the months of April, May and June 2014 as well as Form 16 for the Assessment year 2013-14 had all been proved. No objection was raised at any point of time to this and none of these documents can be challenged at the Appeal stage. Learned Counsel for the Respondent claimants therefore, submits that the average monthly salary of Rs.19,000/- per month, as held by the Tribunal, requires no interference. Learned Counsel would, however, submit that, the Tribunal has, on the basis of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses but omitted to award any amount towards loss of filial consortium which is a right of the parents, as contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases and requests that while dismissing the Appeal, this Court may award Rs.40,000/- each to the father and mother of the deceased.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel at length and with their able assistance perused the papers and proceedings and considered the rival contentions.

6. It is not in dispute that Anuj Nitin Dighe, who was along with his colleagues proceeding in motor car which his colleague Ajay Pinto was driving, on 2nd July 2014, at about 04.45 ho