The court emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to challenge estimations and the burden of proof on the Insurance Company to establish the invalidity of the driver's licence.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. These two Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `17,33,750/- was awarded for the death of Shrichand, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 26.12.2005.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was 50 years of age. He was earning ` 42,000/- per month from doing the job of a building contractor. The Claim Petition was filed by the widow and three major sons of the deceased.

3. In the absence of any reliable evidence as to the deceased’s income, the Claims Tribunal ventured to make a guess work to assume the deceased’s income to be `1,95,000/- (post tax), deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘11’ suitable to the deceased’s age.

4. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection.

5. In MAC APP.841/2010 preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited (Insurance Company) the ground of challenge is that the Appellant Insurance Company was liable to be absolved of the liability as the driver did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, whereas in MAC APP.857/2010 preferred by the Claimants it is averred that the income taken by the Claims Tribunal was not the deceased’s actual income. It was much less, resulting into the award of a meager compensation.

6. First of all, I would deal with the contention raised on behalf of the Claimants.

7. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, Claimant Rampati filed her Affidavit Ex.PW-1/X and entered the witness box as PW-1. In the Affidavit she testified that her husband was earning more than `5,00,000/- per annum as tax was being deducted at source. The Claimants also produced Kamal Kishore who also testified that the deceased was earning `40,000/- to `50,000/- per month. In cross-examination, the witness candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the documents produced by him. The deceased’s profession as a building contractor cannot be disputed in view of the document Ex.PW-3/C which shows that the tax was being deducted at source for the work carried by the deceased. At the same time, Form 16-A (Ex.PW-3/C) simply reveals the gross payment made to the deceased by M/s. Vardhman Properties Limited. It does not show as to how much was the cost of the material and how much was the cost of the labour. The Claimants did not file any Income Tax Return to show as to what was the deceased’s actual income after all his expenditure (on the business of building contractor). The Claims Tribunal performed the difficult task of making a guess work of the deceased’s net income to be `2,00,000/- from the gross receipts as mentioned in Ex.PW-3/C.

8. I have no material to interfere with the guess work so as to enhance the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. I would not interfere with the same.

9. As far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Claims Tribunal held as under:-

“28. In their defence insurer only led the evidence of Assistant G. Majhi to tender his affidavit wherein it was mentioned that offending vehicle was insured in the name of M/s. Spartan Overseas for the period from 11.03.05 to 10.03.06. However, only computerized copy of insurance policy was placed on record instead of carbon copy nor this witness could tell as to by whom the policy was signed. The notice issued u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was referred to as Ex.RW2/1 and the postal receipt as Ex.RW2/2 & 3 and AD card the driver as RW2/4. However, the investigator or the Author of the notice were not examined. The accident took place on 26.12.05 whereas the investigator report (photocopy) shows that the DL in the name of Shyambeer was valid from 12.07.02 to 11.07.05 and from 29.12.05 to 28.12.08. There is over writing in figure 29 and 28 in dates 29.12.05 and 28.12.08 respectively. None from the authority was ex