Liability of the Insurance Company in the absence of fitness certificate and permit for the vehicle, and proper assessment of the deceased's income for determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Case No.392 of 2011 by which claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 38,25,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5 % per annum with effect from filing of the claim petition.

2. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner of the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and permit to ply the vehicle on the road. Under these circumstances, there was breach of policy, hence the Insurance Company was not liable to make any amount of compensation to the claimants. Counsel further submits that the income of the deceased was assessed on the higher side without any basis and the claimants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased, even then the Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,25,000/-. Counsel submits that even under the conventional heads, an exorbitant amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been awarded while as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- should have been awarded. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the income of the deceased was considered on the lower side. Counsel submits that the two Income Tax Returns (for short ‘ITR’) pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 (Ex.20) and 2010-11 (Ex.24) were produced on record. Counsel submits that as per the last return of the deceased pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 (Ex.24), the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,33,161/- but without any basis, the Tribunal has assessed the average income of the deceased on the basis of ITRs of two years i.e. 2009-10 (Ex.20) & 2010-11 (Ex.24). Counsel submits that a few months before the accident, the deceased changed his job and joined SPA Capital Services Limited and as per the documents available on the record, his last drawn salary was Rs. 49,600/- per month. Counsel submits that even this salary was mentioned in the bank account of the deceased, and the copy of his bank account’s pass book was produced as Ex.26. Counsel submits that all these material aspects were overlooked by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. Counsel submits that the date of birth of the deceased was 31.12.1980 and the date of accident is 04.08.2011, hence the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 30 years and 7 months i.e. below 31 years. Even then, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the multiplier of 17 should have been applied.

4. Counsel submits that while passing the award, not a single penny towards the future prospects has been granted to the claimants. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that fitness certificate and permit of the offending vehicle was not produced on the record, but non-production of fitness certificate and permit by the driver and owner of the vehicle would not straightway exonerate the Insurance Company from making the payment of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to make the paym