IMPORTANT POINT
The court applied the principles of evidence and interpretation of legal terms to determine the deceased's income and award consortium to all claimants.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal for enhancement of the award has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in MACT Claim Case No.207/2016 (4208/2016) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants has been partly allowed and an award for an amount of Rs.9,63,088/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

2. The present appeal has been filed on two grounds; firstly, the income as assessed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record and secondly, the amount qua the head of consortium has been awarded only to one of the claimants being the wife of deceased whereas the same ought to have been awarded to the other four claimants too.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was very well proved on record that the deceased was working at two places and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a salesman and further Rs.4,200/- as an accountant. Both the employers with whom the deceased was employed, entered the witness box and specifically deposed about the deceased being in their employment. The ledger accounts have been got exhibited by both the employers and therefore, the computation of income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal @ Rs.5,670/- per month, on basis of the minimum wages, deserves to be set aside being erroneous.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there being discrepancies in the documents as exhibited by both the employers, the evidence of the employer qua salaries being paid by them to the deceased, has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that ledger accounts alone cannot be a sufficient evidence to prove the income of the deceased. He further submitted that only the cover note of the income tax return had been filed which did not reflect the computation of the income and hence, it cannot be said to be proved that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month by the employer Shree Marketing.

5. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the ledger account as exhibited reflects the salary to be paid in cash to all the employees whereas the firm being an audited firm, it cannot be believed that the salary was paid in cash to its employees.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. A bare perusal of the record shows that AW/3 Harendra Singh and AW/4 Lakhpat Kothari, both the alleged employers, have entered the witness box and specifically deposed that the deceased was their employee. AW/4 specifically submitted that just before the death of the deceased, he was paid a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and got exhibited documents Exhibits 22 to 27 and Exhibit 24, being the income tax returns. AW/3 Harendra Singh deposed that the deceased was employed for his accounts work and worked on the weekends qua which a salary of Rs.4,200/- per month was paid to him. He got exhibited the salary certificate Exhibit 28 and further the ledger account Exhibit 29. Income tax return as well as the Audit Report (Exhibits 33 and 33A) were also exhibited.

8. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the said documents for the reason that there was no dispatch number on Exhibits 22 to 27 and further that the same had been issued after a period of three months of death of the deceased. The Tribunal further observed that Exhibits 24 to 26 mentioned the salary of the deceased to be Rs.9000/- per month whereas the same was mentioned to be Rs.12,000/- per month in Exhibit 27. The Tribunal further observed that although an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was reflected in Exhibit 34 qua the salary head but the said amount was different from that in the ledger account and hence, the same cannot