The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the claimant's income, assessment of functional disability, and the adequacy of compensation under different heads in a motor accident claim.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These cross appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and also by the Claimant, challenging the Impugned Award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No. 285/13/14, titled as Sh. Manoj Prasad v. Sh. Harinder Mehta & Ors..

2. It is not in dispute in the appeals that consequent upon the accident, the Claimant has suffered "post traumatic Paraparesis with fracture D3 with permanent physical disability of 75% (seventy five percent) in relation to both lower limbs". The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the Claimant on the following heads:-

Challenge regarding addition of incentive to determine the income of the claimant:

3. The first challenge of the Insurance Company is to the addition of Rs.15,000/- per month claimed to be the incentive received by the Claimant from his employer, that is, M/s LBF Travel India Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer"). The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the pay slips of the Claimant for the months of June to September, 2013 [Ex PW1/B (colly.)] do not show any payment being made as incentive to the Claimant. He submits that PW1- Shri Gopal Bhandari, Sr. H.R. Executive of the Employer did not mention about any incentive being paid to the Claimant. However, PW-4- Shri Dalip Kumar, Sr. Admin. Executive, of the Employer stated that while the salary slips [EX.PW-1/B)(Colly)] did not show payment of any incentive to the Claimant, but volunteered that the Claimant was entitled for incentives and was getting incentives through cash. The witness, however, did not produce any record to substantiate this statement. He submits that, therefore, there was no evidence on record to establish that the Claimant was receiving Rs.15,000/- from the employer as an incentive, and the learned Tribunal has erred in adding the same to his income.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Claimant submits that the payment of incentives is evident from the statement of the bank account of the Claimant maintained with the ICICI Bank as also from a certificate/statement issued by the ICICI Bank which reflects a payment of Rs.30,000/- being credited to the Claimant's bank account on 21.09.2013, and further amounts of Rs.14,695/- and Rs.11,786/- being credited to his account on 19.10.2013 and 31.10.2013. He submits that these amounts reflect the payment of incentive by the employer to the Claimant. To a query of this Court as to whether any witness of the Claimant has testified to the effect that these entries, in fact, relate to payment of incentive by the employer to the Claimant, he fairly admits that no witness has deposed to this effect. He submits that amounts reflected in the statement, however, duly correspond to the claim of the Claimant that an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month was being paid by the employer to the Claimant as incentive.

5. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the Claimant. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410, entries in a statement of account are not primary evidence of the fact; they are merely corroborative and have to be proved through primary evidence. In the present case, PW-1 Mr.Gopal Bhandari, Senior H.R. Executive with the LBF Travels India Pvt. Ltd. did not mention payment of any incentive to the Claimant. PW-4 stated that such incentive was being paid in cash by the employer to the Claimant. Therefore, it was not the case of the employer that the payment of incentive has