IMPORTANT POINT
Wage slip issued by employer is conclusive proof of monthly income.
Power under section 173, MV Act is akin to the power of hearing appeals in any other case. Same principles apply.

ORDER

1. Leave granted. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Learned Counsel, appeared for Appellants and Mr. Sharana Gouda Patil, Learned Counsel appeared for Respondents.

2. Appellants as Claimants had filed a claim Petition MVC No. 97/2006, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for awarding compensation to them on account of death of Anneppa Swamy in a motor accident.

3. The accident had taken place on 30.11.2005. Deceased Anneppa Swamy was admittedly working as Driver of Respondent No. 1, that is, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Corporation').

4. The factum of death of Anneppa Swamy in a road accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Registration No. CA-38-F-267 driven by the other driver Balu Karagar, has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that at the relevant point of time he was aged about 40 years and was working as driver on the buses operated by Respondent No. 1/Corporation. The claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that Appellants-claimants herein would be entitled to receive a total amount of ` 11,76,400/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Seventy Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till deposit.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, passed by the Tribunal on 12.10.2006, the Respondent No. 1/Corporation preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal MFA No. 4235/ 2007, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga. The Division Bench after having heard the matter and after perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that the salary of the deceased (Anneppa Swamy) could not have been worked out at ` 9,559/ - per month, assessed by the Tribunal. Indeed, it should be ` 7,414/- per month and out of this, the net salary payable to the deceased (Anneppa Swamy) would come to ` 5,083/- per month. Thus, the Division Bench, in its wisdom, worked out the salary of the deceased at ` 5,000/- per month, deducting one-fifth of the same, loss of dependency of the Appellants was worked out at ` 4,000/- per month. The High Court then fixed the total amount of compensation at ` 7,22,000/- as against `11,76,400/- assessed by the Tribunal.

6. Feeling aggrieved by reduction of the compensation by the High Court as against the award of Tribunal, the Appellants/ Claimants are in appeal before us.

7. The Salary Certificate of deceased (Anneppa Swamy) has been filed before us. The date of payment of salary as per this Salary Certificate is 07.11.2005. In the said certificate, the gross wages payable to the deceased (Anneppa Swamy) is shown as ` 9,559/-. The actual wages paid comes to ` 5,565/-, after making certain deductions from the same.

8. Learned Counsel for Respondent/Corporation strenuously contended before us that the Salary Certificate was not proved in accordance with law before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal had committed an error in taking the aforesaid amount of ` 9,559/- as the salary of the deceased (Anneppa Swamy) for one month.

9. However, the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Corporation is neither convincing nor acceptable to us.

10. The document clearly shows that it is the Wage Slip issued by Respondent No. 1/Corporation wherein all details of the income of the deceased (Anneppa Swamy) have been reflected. The document does not reflect or show that the same has been created or manufactured by the Appellants for the purposes of getting higher compensation. Issuance of the aforesaid Wage Slip by Respondent No. 1/Corporation has not been challenged before us.

11. Issue No. 4 dealing with the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellants was decided by Tribunal in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondent No. 1/Corporation, holding therein that they would be entitled to receive `