The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation for the death of passengers in motor accidents, based on the assessment of the deceased's income and the application of relevant legal provisions.

S. Samvatsar, J.

1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both these appeals as they arise out of the award dated 20.6.2003, passed by the Third Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,120 towards compensation to the claimants for the death of Nathuram who died in a motor accident.

2. Misc. Appeal No. 675 of 2003 is filed by the insurance company challenging its liability to pay the compensation while Misc. Appeal No. 707 of 2003 is filed by claimants for enhancement of the award.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased Nathuram along with his family members was going to Vaishno Devi. For that purpose, he borrowed a jeep from one of his friends bearing registration No. UP 75-9660. When the jeep reached near village Barhi, it dashed against another jeep coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, deceased Nathuram sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Phoop whereon Marg No. 24/00 was recorded. Subsequently, the police registered the case at Crime No. 114 of 2000 for commission of the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4. Claimants are the widow and children of the deceased. The jeep in question was owned by Asha Jadon, respondent No. 9 in M.A. No. 675 of 2003 and was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant in M.A. No. 675 of 2003.

5. According to the claimants, the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident and was posted as a peon in Central Bank of India at village Masuri, District Bhind. He was getting salary of Rs. 5,481 including all allowances. The Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was between 40-45 years of age at the time of accident and the Claims Tribunal after applying the multiplier assessed the compensation accordingly.

6. Contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side while Mr. B.N. Malhotra, counsel for the insurance company contended that amount awarded is just and proper. He, however, contended that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Thus, the questions involved in these appeals are quantum of compensation and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation.

7. So far as the quantum is concerned, as per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, the deceased was between 40-45 years of age at the time of the accident. Hence, multiplier of 15 will be applicable in the present case.

8. As regards the income of the deceased, claimants have produced Exh. PI which is a salary certificate issued by the Central Bank of India, Branch Masuri, District Bhind wherein it is certified that the deceased was getting basic pay of Rs. 3,650, Rs. 352 as special pay, dearness allowance Rs. 1,104.55, house rent allowance Rs. 260.13, washing allowance Rs. 50 and vehicle allowance Rs. 65. Thus, he was getting total salary of Rs. 5,481.68. For proving this document, the claimants have examined, Mohar Singh Narwariya, AW 1, Ex-Head Cashier of the bank. In para 3 of his statement, he has stated that he was cashier in the said bank, now he is retired. Salary certificate, Exh. PI is issued by the Branch Manager of the bank. This statement is disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that this certificate is not signed by the said witness and he was never posted along with the person signing the document Exh. PI and in the absence of any other evidence, it cannot be believed that the deceased was posted as a peon. Hence, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month considering the fact that deceased was a hale and hearty person and could be earning Rs. 2,000 per month. According to the counsel for the claimants this finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is not proper. According to him, the statemen