The judgment established the admissibility of financial documents, the computation of compensation, and the determination of financial dependency in road accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. - The claimants' appeal: MAC. APP. 491/2013, impugns part of the award of compensation dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned MACT in the claim petition numbered MACT No. 85/11/10. The claimants are the widow and two sons of Mr. Mykhailo Ivanovych Bershadskyi, who suffered fatal injuries in a road accident on 01.06.2008. He was taking out his luggage from a bus bearing registration no. DL1 PC0624, opposite Departure Gate No.3, Terminal-2, IGI Airport, New Delhi, when another bus bearing no. DL1 PB 7962, struck the bus of the deceased from the rear side with immense force, causing the deceased suffered multiple grievous injuries. He was rushed to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre but succumbed to injuries on the way. A post-mortem report was filed.

2. The bus was driven by R-1 in MAC. APP. 491/2013, in a rash and negligent manner; it was moving at a high speed and in total contravention of traffic rules and regulations. The accident occurred due to the complete negligence of R-1 and no fault was attributed to the deceased. He was homeward bound: preparing to take a flight to his native city, Kiev, Ukraine. His date of birth being 28.07.1951, he was 56 years young. He is stated to have been the Head of Board of a joint stock company called MAVT. He was also a Physical Person Entrepreneur ("PPE"). He was drawing a salary from the former, while from the latter, he was earning on the basis of his experience and profile as a former army-man in the Ukrainian army.

3. Pw1 Satish Kumar, a helper for M/s Panicker Travels, which owned the bus from which the deceased was taking out his luggage, had deposed as an eye witness to the fatal accident in terms of the above. He deposed that he and two-three foreigners also had sustained injuries. His deposition withstood the cross-examination on behalf of the insurer of vehicle. PW2 the son of the deceased deposed about the earning of their father and promise he held for future earnings as a PPE. He had filed certified copies of financial records, business agreements, educational qualifications and certificates, extending to 157 different documents, including the FIR, Chargesheet and Post Mortem Report, in support of the claim.

4. The insurer has questioned the admissibility of the financial documents and have contended the nature of evidence. Both these contentions were rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the signature of the translator of the original Ukrainian documents were apostilled by the Embassy of India, in Kiev (Kyiv). The original documents were produced during the trial proceedings. The insurer took copies of the same to have them verified. However, nothing came of it. The claimants' documents/exhibits were accepted in evidence on the basis of the reasoning contained in paras 91 to 116 of the award. After discussing the law on the admissibility of documents and apostilled translated version of the same, the learned Tribunal noted:

"116. Insurance company has not led any evidence to show that the translation is incorrect. Insurance company has not shown that these documents are forged and fabricated. This is inspite of an application by insurance company for adjournment for verification with the help of some honest and prudent agency and tax consultant in Ukraine for this purpose."

5. The court finds no reason to alter or interfere with the same.

6. The claimants have sought, compensation, inter alia, for loss of earnings, on the basis of the annual income of the deceased. The award is impugned on the methodology of the computation adopted for computation of loss of income.

7. As mentioned above, the earnings of the deceased was from two sources:

(i) his salary from the JSC-MAVT and (ii) his earnings as a PPE. The earnings from the former were based on a Certificate issued by the joint stock company MAVT, which reads as under:

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order has erred in adopting earnings for 150 days whereas the wo