1. - This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 28.2.1995 in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 761/92, which was filed on account of the death of one Govind Sahai Verma, who met with a motor accident on 20.7.1992 involving a tempo bearing No. RJ-14-P-0057, which was owned by respondent No. 2-Prem Chand Sharma, driven by respondent No. 1-Buniyad Khan and was insured by the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the deceased-Govind Sahai Verma received multiplier injuries and died. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

2. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- in all as compensation under the impugned award dated 28.2.1995. The appellants, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the evidence with regard to the actual income of the deceased and has passed the award treating the loss of income on a lump-sum basis as Rs. 75,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a retired Government servant, drawing a pension of Rs. 2,070/- per month and at the same time was also employed with M/s. National Engineering, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, as Manager, drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into account the evidence led on behalf of the claimants so far as the income of the deceased in concerned. In this behalf, the submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the evidence in the form of AW-4 Vinod Agarwal, husband of the Proprietrix of M/s. National Engineering, deposed before the learned Tribunal and proved the salary certificate Exhibit-1, showing the income of Rs. 3,000/- per month paid by the said firm to the deceased. The said witness also produced the income tax assessment order of the said firm in the form Exhibit 18. The aforesaid two documents were not taken into account by the learned Tribunal while deciding the question with regard to the income of the deceased at the time of his death. The appellants had also filed Exhibit 17, the income tax assessment order of the deceased for the year 1992-93, which was not accepted by the learned Tribunal since the earlier assessment orders of the deceased were not filed despite the fact that the learned Tribunal had on 23.5.1991 directed that the same should be filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal erred in drawing adverse inference against the claimants in determining the income of the deceased and in deciding the dependency and determining the amount of compensation in a lumpsum manner amounting to Rs. 75,000/-.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted that the claimants withheld the best evidence of producing the income tax assessment orders of the previous years despite the fact that the learned Tribunal had directed the claimants to produce the same and, therefore, the learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality in ignoring the said evidence.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. At the outset I am of the opinion that in matters of accident claims where the parties are represented and the claimants have led cogent evidence to prove their case then the burden would shift upon the non-claimants to prove their case in rebuttal and they cannot take shelter of the fact that the earlier assessment orders were not filed in the Tribunal by the claimants. It was open to the respondents to have obtained the certified copies from the concerned departments taking into consideration the Permanent Account Numb