The judgment emphasizes the summary nature of proceedings and the applicability of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act in accepting income-tax returns as appropriate evidence for assessment of income status.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at fault. The learned counsel has further relied upon the testimony of the driver RW1-Ravinder Kumar Dogra as well as the testimony of PW2-Amit Dhawan to contend that from a conjoint reading of their statements it was clear that the deceased was at fault. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has further contended that the income of the deceased has also wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal in as much as no official from the Income-Tax Department was produced to prove the income-tax returns.

3. Heard.

4. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 13.06.2019 at about 4.00 pm the deceased Paramjit Singh @ Paramjit Negi was going on the road leading from Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur to Aero City, Mohali via Village Chhat Traffic Light Point on an Activa Scooter bearing registration no.HR03-L-2710 at a slow speed and on the left side of the road. He was being followed by Amit Dhawan, PW2, who was on a separate Activa Scooter. When they reached in front of AKM Resort, Zirakpur, a car bearing registration no.PB65-AC-2598, which was being driven by respondent No.6 herein at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and after overtaking the Scooter of Amit Dhawan struck the Activa Scooter of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell on the road and received serious injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. Claim petition was filed by the wife, mother and three daughters of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.75 lakhs. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was self- employed and was running a cloth business and was earning Rs.1 lakh per month. It was also stated that the deceased was an income-tax payee. The claim petition was contested by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle raising the preliminary objection that the claimants had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and that the claim petition had been filed just to extract compensation. On merits, it was stated that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and it was the deceased who was driving the Activa Scooter in a rash and negligent manner and tried to cross the road from the wrong side without giving any signal and without following the traffic rules. The claim petition was also contested by the appellant-Insurance Company on similar grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether Paramjit Singh @ Paramjit Negi has died in a road side accident due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.PB65-AC-2598 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3

4. Relief.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by respondent No.6 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of Paramjit Singh @ Paramjit Negi and the claimants were held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.30,68,363/- along with interest at the rate of 71/2 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of the award.

6. In the present case, the eye-witness i.e. Amit Dhawan, who had appeared in the witness box as PW2, had clearly stated the manner in which the accident had taken place. In the cross-examination of the said witness nothing could be elicited which would even remotely suggest that the version as put forth by th