The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence for income and disability claims in compensation cases, rejecting unverified assertions and improper assessments.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above titled appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment/award dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu, in Claim Petition No. 140 titled “Kuldeep Kumar vs Union of India & Ors” and in Claim Petition No. 228 titled “Jano & Ors vs United India Insurance Co. & Ors” respectively, arising out of the same accident involving the same offending vehicle. In view of the similar facts and circumstances with regard to the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle and the insured and the insurer being same in the common judgment/award, these appeals were clubbed together and are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A passenger vehicle (Bus) bearing registration No. JK02L-4951 met with an accident at Tikri near Petrol Pump on 22.04.2004, in which five passengers died and many passengers including the respondent Kuldeep Kumar were seriously injured regarding which a case was registered at Police Post Station Katra vide FIR No. 106/2004 for commission of offences punishable under sections 279/337/304-A RPC and a charge sheet was laid before the Court of law, on conclusion of investigation.

3. The legal heirs of the deceased Yousaf filed Claim Petition No. 228 and injured Kuldeep Kumar filed Claim Petition No. 140 under Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu (for short "the Tribunal‟). In Claim Petition titled “Jano & Anr vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors” (Claim No. 228) for the death of deceased Yousaf, an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of claimants. The Tribunal had accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, after deducting one third of his income on personal expenses of the deceased and having regard to his age between 55 to 60 years with application of 6 as multiplier granted compensation in favour of the claimants. In the other case titled “Kuldeep Kumar vs Union of India & Ors” (Claim No. 140), the respondent/injured was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs.5,16,000/- having regard to his annual income of Rs. 24,000/- with application of multiplier of 14, having regard to his age of 38 years at the time of accident and the sum of Rs.80,000/- was provided for pain and sufferings, as the respondent/ Kuldeep Kumar was found to have suffered permanently disability @ 40%.

4. The appellants having been aggrieved of the impugned Awards, preferred the above titled appeals, assailing the awards on the grounds that the Tribunal had committed illegality in assuming the income of respondent No.1/Kuldeep Kumar @ Rs.5,000/- though there was no evidence at all regarding his profession and income; that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the said respondent is without any basis/evidence, documentary or otherwise, totally bad and illegal and is required to be set aside. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal, while passing the award impugned, failed to consider the principle that the onus to prove occupation and income is always upon claimant which he is required to discharge by leading best possible and cogent evidence as held by the Apex Court in “Oriental Insurance Co. vs Meera Variyal”, reported as 2009(1) Supreme 266, wherein it is held that a bare self serving assertion regarding income is not sufficient. The Tribunal also failed to consider the settled principle that where the claimant fails to prove the income, the Tribunal can assume the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided in Schedule u/s 163-A of the Act. The Apex Court recently in case titled “UPSRTC vs Shanti Devi”, reported as 2009 ACJ 1119 assessed the income of shopkeeper at Rs.1500/- per month where the claimant failed to produce cogent evidence regarding the income of the deceased. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal committed illegality in relying upon the statement of Dr. N.D.Dar with regard to disa