The Jharkhand High Court, in a Motor Vehicles claim case, ruled that the oral testimony given under oath by witnesses should not be doubted solely on the grounds of speculation, assumptions, or unrelated factors.
Brief Facts:
In this particular case, the claimant's husband lost his life in a road accident when he was struck by a truck owned by the sixth respondent. The vehicle was insured by the petitioner. The tribunal granted compensation, in the present appeal such order by the learned tribunal has been challenged.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel contended that the contested award was granted based on an incorrect assessment of the deceased's income and the calculation of compensation, which seems to exceed established legal principles.
The counsel argued that the tribunal failed to recognize the absence of documentary evidence supporting the deceased's income of Rs. 7,500 per month, and there was no proof that the deceased worked as a Raj Mistry or skilled labourer.
Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the calculation of future prospects was inaccurately determined, amounting to Rs. 2,59,200.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that has submitted that due to poverty the claimants could not file any appeal against the impugned award but there is apparent infirmity in the calculation of the just compensation as per norms settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that during the cross-examination of the witness representing the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., no effort was made to challenge or discredit her testimony. The only suggestion put forth was that the deceased husband did not earn Rs. 7,500 per month and was not employed as a Raj Mistri.
The Court examined other independent witnesses, who affirmed that the deceased worked as a Raj Mistri, earning Rs. 7,500 per month. The court highlighted that the oral testimony given under oath should not be doubted based on conjecture or extraneous considerations, especially since the appellant provided no evidence to counter the witnesses' statements. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500 was deemed genuine for the compensation assessment.
Emphasizing the Motor Vehicle Act's principle of 'Just and Fair Compensation,' the court noted that fairness, reasonableness, and equitability should guide compensation determinations. In this case, the court adjusted the deduction for personal expenses to 1/4th of the income instead of the tribunal's 1/3rd, citing the Apex Court's judgment in Pranay Shetty. Considering the deceased's age and self-employment, the court added 40% of the established income as a future prospect.
Given these considerations, the court found it necessary to modify the tribunal's award.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court allowed the appeal and increased the compensation amount to Rs 17,64,500 along with 9% simple interest from the date of institution of the case till the date of realization.
Case Title: Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Namita Das and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: M.A. No. 99 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Amresh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Varun Prabhakar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
