The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicle Act and relevant case law to determine the quantum of compensation in a motor vehicular accident case, particularly in assessing the deceased's earnings and the appropriate heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, thereby, assailing the Award dated 10.04.2014 vide which, compensation was granted to the respondents-claimants, on account of death of Satinder Kumar alias Bittu, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 30.04.2012.

2. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal vide impugned Award had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.19,97,200/- to the respondents-claimants.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so granted, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, thereby, questioning the quantum of compensation, so granted to the respondents-claimants. So far as the fact of accident and manner of taking place of the same, as well as the liability, so fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal, as such, has been filed by the aforesaid persons, to dispute the liability, so fastened upon them and thus, qua these issues, the findings, so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality. It is now only the dispute, vis-a-vis, quantum of compensation.

4. The specific pleaded case of the respondents-claimants is that deceased Satinder Kumar alias Bittu was 45 years old and he was shopkeeper and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that even though, the respondents-claimants had asserted about the deceased to be a shopkeeper, but no satisfactory evidence, relating to the same, as such, has come on record. No detail, of what kind of shop was being run by the deceased, has been proved.

5. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that the earnings ought to be taken as a casual labourer and precisely, on this account, while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- and working upon, the compensation needs to be scaled down.

6. However, the aforesaid submission is bereft of merits. Firstly, it is pertinent to mention that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and it does not require strict rules of evidence. Keeping in view the same, it is essential to mention that claimant No.1-Dinesh, who is widow of the deceased, herself has stepped into witness box as PW-2 and she has categorically deposed about deceased (her husband) to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the shop, which he was running. No crossexamination, as such, has been conducted by the Insurance Company, vis-avis, the deceased, running a shop. Even though, it has come in the crossexamination of PW-2 Dinesh, that she had expressed her inability to produce any document regarding Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of her husband, but however, his indulgence in the shop-keeping, as such, has never been disputed in the cross-examination.

7. Similarly, PW-1 Mangat Rai, who is an eye witness to the accident, in his affidavit, has also stated about deceased to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month, from the shop, he was running and qua this witness also, no crossexamination, as such, has been conducted to dispute running of the shop by the deceased, even though, the extent of earnings, as such, has been disputed by way of giving a suggestion, which has been though denied. In such circumstances, as now submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased, as such, cannot be, in the minimum, considered as casual labourer. However, the assertion of the extent of his earnings to be Rs.25,000/- per month, does not stand established, but the fact of running a shop, has not been disputed, by way of cross-examination.

8. In the light of the same, learned Tribunal had appropriately not considered the deceased as casual labourer and in the modest estimate, had taken the earnings of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. The guess work, so done by learned Tribunal