The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on documentary evidence to determine the deceased's income and the application of legal precedents to re-compute the compensation award.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 46/2013 (147/97), whereby an amount of Rs. 10,94,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Kavita Kala in the accident which occurred on 18.10.1996.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants respondents awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,94,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the claim petition filed by the claimants respondents was allowed and the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in their favour.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants submitted SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1840/2001 before this Court and on 04.01.2013 the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.

5. Counsel submits that after remand of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the amount of award on higher side without any basis. Counsel submits that the claimants respondents have failed to prove the income of the deceased. Counsel further submits that though the claimants respondents have examined the employer of the firm where the deceased was working but when AW-4 Shanti Lal (employer of the firm) was examined in the witness box, a detailed cross-examination was done in which he has admitted that no income tax was paid for the salaries given to the employees. He further submits that there was no mention about the appointment order in the record maintained by the firm. Hence, it cannot be believed that the deceased was working on the post of Assistant Manager (Computer) with the firm of AW-4 Shanti Lal. Counsel submits that all these material facts were not considered by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased. Counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 1996 and looking to the qualification of the deceased it cannot be believed that she was receiving salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel submits that though the claimants have submitted bill vouchers with regard to the salaries received by the deceased but except on the bill voucher Ex. 30 the signatures of the deceased are not there on other bill vouchers i.e. Ex. 31 to Ex. 35. Counsel submits that even under the conventional head exorbitant amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- has been awarded to the claimants and 50% amount towards future prospects has been awarded to the claimants in contravention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: (2017) 16 SCC 680. Counsel, therefore, prays that interference may be made in the impugned award and the same may be quashed and set aside by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants respondents has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 06.01.2014 does not call for any interference of this Court.

7. Counsel for the respondents claimants submits that the deceased was well qualified and she was holding the degree of M.A. in Philosophy and she was possessing Computer Diploma Certificate issued by the National Institute of Computer Education (Ex. 17). Counsel submits that the appointment order (Ex. 29) of the deceased was placed on the record and the bill vouchers were issued by the firm where the decea