The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income based on credible evidence, affirming that the evidence was sufficient to support the compensation awarded.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kutch-Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.188 of 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 05.02.2012, the deceased was travelling in Rickshaw No.GJ-12-T-1071 along with others and when they reached near the place of accident, opponent No.1 came in Truck No.GJ-12-AU-6216 from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the rickshaw. As a result, the accident took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed aforestated claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 26.02.2021 has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.19,24,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Alkesh Shah for the appellant – Insurance Company would submit that learned Tribunal has committed error in taking up income of the deceased to Rs.1,44,000/- per annum as the person who has issued income certificate at Exhibit-55 has deposed at Exhbit-43 was his real brother and proprietor of Hotel Irani and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon to believe income of the deceased. Mainly, upon above submissions, he would submit that learned Tribunal ought to have taken minimum wages in absence of any evidence on record much less worthy evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for the claimants referred to para 11 of the impugned judgment and award to submit that deceased was working as manager in Hotel Irani. He would further submit that though proprietor of Hotel Irani was real brother of the deceased, claimants have produced on record the profit and loss account, balancesheet and ledger for the financial year from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, which was duly certified by Chartered Accountant who endorsed that he has verified the same from the original documents. The income of the deceased was Rs.1,50,000/- and the learned Tribunal has rightly taken up income of deceased at Rs.1,44,000/- per annum and therefore, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. He would submit to dismiss the appeal.

6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as evidence recorded before the learned Tribunal. The only question arises that whether learned Tribunal has committed error in taking up income of deceased to Rs.1,44,000/- ? Another question that arise is that whether there is sufficient evidence before learned Tribunal to take departure from taking rate of minimum wage as income? At the outset, I may refer to para 11 of the impugned judgment and award whereby learned Tribunal has discussed reasons for taking up Rs.1,44,000/- as income of the deceased, which reads as under :

“11. The applicant Jusab Abdulla Sangar father of the – deceased has deposed on oath vide Exh.41 and stated that his deceased son was working as a manager with Irani Hotel in Mandvi town and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. He has also relied upon the income certificate and the evidence of the witness examined in this matter. He has also submitted that had the deceased would not have met with the accident his income would have increased to Rs.30,000/- p.m. in future. Now in his cross examination, he has admitted that his son had studied up to 11^th standard and he was unmarried