JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.Jairaj, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.06.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1477 of 2013, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the subject MVOP filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- was allowed in part by the Tribunal, granting a compensation of Rs.6,95,400/-.

3. The claim petition arose following the death of the deceased D.Thirupathi in a road accident which took place on 04.02.2013 at 15.30 hours near Kondamadugu, Bibi Nagar, NH No.163, when the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 09 AU 4865 on which the deceased was travelling along with his friends Alender Reddy and Raju was struck by a tanker bearing registration No.AP 31U 6158. The occurrence of the subject accident and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The appeal is preferred alleging that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not taken Ex.A6-original salary certificate of the deceased into consideration while computing compensation. As per Ex.A6-salary certificate, the deceased is shown to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has wrongly considered the wages of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Further, the Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects at 50% instead of 40%, since the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of his death in the subject accident. On these grounds, the appellants sought enhancement of compensation.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the appellants, though got marked Ex.A6-salary certificate of the deceased in evidence, but did not examine any witness to prove the contents of Ex.A6. Ex.A6 is a singular document which is not supported by any other documents, such as, appointment letter, attendance register or salary register. Alternatively, there are no details of the bank account showing deposit of salary in the account of the deceased. When there is no oral evidence to support the veracity of the contents of Ex.A6, the same cannot be taken into consideration. As such, no fault can be found with the Tribunal for taking the wages of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, as per appellants, the deceased was a Supervisor working in M/s.Vijetha Digital for about 6 months prior to the accident, whereas the inquest report marked as Ex.A2 shows that the deceased was working as a Flexi Board worker. The said point is also confirmed in the charge sheet under Ex.A4. The contents of police record raise doubts about the genuineness of the claims made by the appellants about the avocation and income of the deceased.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, [2023(1) ALT (SC) 47 (D.B)], for taking Ex.A6-salary certificate into consideration for computing compensation. The said case of the Hon’ble Apex Court is distinguishable, as there is difference between a pay slip and a salary certificate issued by a private person. A pay slip, being an official document from an employer, carries inherent authenticity regarding salary payments and in contrast, a certificate from a private individual may lack the same level of credibility. When a pay slip is presented as evidence, and its authenticity is not in question, it should be accepted as reliable proof of the deceased's income. But in the instant case, the avocation and income of the deceased are in doubt on account of the discrepancy in the pleadings when compared to the contents of police record. Therefore, the cited judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court having distinguished facts will not apply to