Compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not require strict rules of evidence as in criminal trials. The standard of proof is preponderance of probability. The court must assess the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity. Claimant entitled to future prospects in case of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident. Interest awarded by the Tribunal deemed just.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred to as “Tribunal”).

2. The claimant/appellant Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred to as “injured”), preferred a claim petition, which was partly allowed and the compensation was granted to the tune of Rs.2,82,811/- in MACT Case No. 166/2012.

3. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire evidence led before held that injured Dinesh Kumar suffered injuries in the motor accident on 08.03.2012. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

4. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.4,082/- per month and considering 36% permanent disability awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the loss of income and awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,82,811/-, the break up of which is as under:

Grounds:-

(A) The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured considering him semi-skilled labour applying the prevalent rates on the date of occurrence as per the Notification of the Labour Department, whereas the appellant was earning Rs.13,000/- per month. The Tribunal wrongly discarded the oral and documentary testimony of the claimant concerning his income.

(B) The interest awarded to the tune of 9% per annum is inadequate and the claimant is liable to get 12% interest on the awarded money.

(C) The award under the head of loss of income due to functional disability is inadequate and further the Tribunal did not award compensation under the head of future prospects to the appellant.

(D) The counsel for the Insurance Company justifies the compensation awarded to the appellant under various heads and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:-

Assessment of Income

5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.4,082/- per month.

6. The Tribunal discarded the oral and documentary testimony of the claimant regarding his income and held that in the absence of cogent evidence to prove the salary certificate Exhibit-55, it is not proved that the appellant was earning Rs.13,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal while relying upon the Exhibit-53A, Exhibits- 56A, 54A, 57A and 58A concluded that the claimant is a qualified Teacher having experience in teaching.

7. In the absence of non-examination of the witness, who issued the salary certificate Exhibit-55, the Tribunal disbelieved it and further concluded that in the absence of income tax returns, bank passbook and other supportive documents it is not justified that the claimant was getting Rs.13,000/- per month as a Teacher. Based upon the prevalent rates applicable for the daily wagers the Tribunal computed the monthly salary of the claimant as Rs.4,082/- per month applicable for semi-skilled workers.

8. In Civil Appeal No.8179/2022 : Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. and Seema & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.8180/2022, Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-

“It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (supra) and Kusum Lata (supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are no