Motor Accident Claims Tribunals have discretion in awarding compensation, guided by evidence rather than rigid standards.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance company against the Award dated 18.01.2006 passed in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.14,40,000 along with interest @

9% per annum.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the salary of deceased while calculating compensation. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award dated 18.01.2006 be set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

5. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

“28. Shri Prakash Chaturvedi, Finance Controller, Creative Looms, New Delhi (PW5), deposed that Mahender Singh was working as Export Consultant in the Company. He was appointed on May 1, 2002. His salary was Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has proved the appointment letter Exhibit P25 of the deceased, certificate Exhibit P26 issued by the Company and salary account Exhibit P27. IT has been also proved by him that after the death of Mahender Singh, an amount of Rs.45,000/- was paid to his widow, that is, Seema, applicant as a compensation vide vouchers Exhibits P28 to P30. The Company had also paid income tax vide challan No. 9, forms No. 16 and 24 Exhibits P31, P32 and P33 respectively.

29. Shri N.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously urged that while calculating the income of Mahender Singh, deceased, it has to be taken into consideration that the deceased was Non-Resident Indian. He had a company in the foreign country. He was employed by a foreign company from the year 1999 to 2002 and thereafter, was an Export Consultant in the Creative Looms, New Delhi drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.

30. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Malik, learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent no. 3 has refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that Mahender Singh, deceased was vagabond and challenged in a case under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code registered against him and three others vide First Information Report Exhibit R1. He was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code in the said case as is evident from the copy of the judgment Exhibit R2. It was also pleaded that in the said criminal case, in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that he was a taxi driver by profession. The copy of the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code Exhibit R3 has also been relied upon in that context. It was further urged that Mahender Singh, deceased was non-earning hand and the entire evidence led by the applicants to prove that he was earning Rs.15000/- per month is a manipulated affair.

31. In order to determine the income of Mahender Singh, deceased, it is not possible to take into consideration that he was non-resident Indian, stayed in foreign country for a couple of years and had