RAFIQ, J.—This appeal filed by claimants seeks to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar dated 18.10.2001 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased Jagdish Prasad was a driver. Her widow AW-1 Muli Devi in her statement has stated that his employer Babudeen was paying him Rs.3,000 per month. Babu Deen has himself appeared as AW-3 in witness box and stated that deceased Jagdish was driver of his truck no.RNG-1097 which met with the accident. The heavy vehicle trailor that was insured with the respondent insurance company, hit the truck due to which deceased died. This witness has further stated that he is paying Rs.3,000 per month to deceased, however, the own expenses were borne by the deceased himself. The Tribunal wrongly discarded that evidence on the plea that the owner of the truck AW-3 Babudeen did not produce the record or account books to show that he was paying Rs.3,000 to deceased as salary. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification for accepting the daily income of the deceased to be Rs.60 per day and on that basis monthly income at Rs.1,800 when there was no specific evidence that his monthly income was Rs.3,000 per month. Learned counsel submitted that there were five dependents of the deceased, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not justified. Learned counsel submitted that income of Rs.3,000 should be accepted and the claimant should be held entitled to future prospects of 50% on the basis of judgement of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010, decided on 23.04.2012 and compensation should be suitably enhanced.

3. Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company opposed the appeal and submitted that mere oral assertion that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000 per month as salary, cannot be accepted. Neither widow AW-1 Muli Devi, nor the owner of the truck AW-3 Babudeen, were able to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate this fact. The Tribunal has taken Rs.60/- as daily income also considering the fact that the own expenses were borne by the deceased himself. Learned counsel submitted that deduction of 1/3rd for the self expenses of the deceased was also justified as per the law prevalent at that time. He further submitted that benefit of future prospects cannot be granted in a case where there is no permanent employment or definite or certainty of increase in income by way of increments, pay revision etc. which may be available in a government employment.

4. Considering the statements of AW-1 Muli Devi, widow and AW-3 Babudeen, it is evident that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000 per month, but at the same time also considering the fact that accident took place in the year 1996, a sum of Rs.2,000 can be safely taken as the monthly income of the deceased if not Rs.3,000 because he was driver of a heavy vehicle and the evidence adduced by the claimants has not been effectively rebutted by the insurance company.

5. As regards the grant of future prospects, the Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment in the case of Santosh Devi, has observed as under:-

“14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of livin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document