ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (Main) Surat, in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.439 of 2013.

2 The brief facts of the present case are as under that:

2.1 It is alleged that on 23.11.2012 at 11:15 hours at night, when the respondent No.1 was travelling by a car driven by respondent No.2, a truck came from opposite side with full lights, and therefore, the driver lost control and collided with the neem tree resulting into injuries to the claimant being fracture of the knee and left femur. Accordingly, he had to undergo medical treatment and it is claimed that he has suffered 35% disability in the left leg.

2.2 The claimant respondent No.1 has filed a claim for taking 8,00,000/- under various heads along with costs and interest by preferring the Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.439 of 2013, in MACT (Main) Surat.

2.3 The respondent No.1 claimant has claimed that he was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as commission, and therefore, he was earning a total Rs.12,000/- per month by doing marketing job. In support of his claim, he has produced appointment letter issued by one IKYA Company, which shows that the claimant was offered a salary of Rs.8,837/- per month.

2.4 The appellant-Insurance Company and other opponents appeared in the MACP Case and refuted the claim of the respondent No.1. The parties led evidence in support of the claim and the contentions.

2.5 By impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, the learned MACT, Surat was pleased to allow the claim of the respondent No.1 herein and held that the respondent No.1-claimant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,62,000/- with proportionate cost and interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the claim petition till realization from the opponents jointly and severally.

2.6 It was further directed that after deductions 70% amount shall be invested in FDR in the name of the claimant in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years and the remaining 30% amount shall be paid to the claimant by way of Account Payee Cheque, after due verification.

2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the Insurance Company herein has preferred the present First Appeal before this Court.

3. Ms.Kirti Pathak, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has totally misread the evidence with respect to the income of the claimant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has misread Exhibit 39 and 41 to hold it as a salary certificate and appointment letter respectively. However, the same is not so. A perusal of the original documents on record would reveal that what has been produced by the claimant- respondent No.1 is the appointment letter along with Annexure detailing out the monthly compensation which would be given to him, in case, he accepts the appointment. 4. She submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the claimant with respect to his monthly income. She submits that though he has claimed an income of Rs.12,000/- being Rs.9,000/- from service and Rs.3,000/- as commission, no cogent evidence has been brought on record for the said amount. In the deposition, the claimant has also accepted that there is no evidence brought on record with respect to his monthly earning of Rs.12,000/-. She submits that no another document has been placed on record in support of his salary or income except the appointment letter along with the Annexure. She submits that it has not been brought on record whether the claimant-respondent No.1 had accepted the said offer and joined the Company. She, therefore, submits that in absence of any cogent evidence with respect to the income of the claimant, the income should have been calculated on the basis of rates of minimum wages as prevalent in the State of Gujarat for the skilled worker. She submits that as per the Minimum Wages Act for the Ski