Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Neeru Sharma & Ors. on 27 August, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 27.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 649/2019, CM APPL. 30087/2019, CM APPL.
30088/2019 & CM APPL. 30089/2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.
versus
NEERU SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 30088/2019 (for Delay)
1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the
appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned.
The appeal is taken on record.
3. The application stands disposed-off.
CM APPL. 30089/2019 (for Exemption)
4. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application stands disposed-off.
MAC.APP. 649/2019 & CM APPL. 30087/2019
6. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 11.03.2019 on
the ground that there was no evidence apropos employment and salary of the
deceased was led.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to the evidence of Mr.
Kapil Garg, PW-4, who had brought details of the records of payment made
apropos the four salary slips for the months of June to September, 2016 and
the payment details with supporting certificate under section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In his cross-examination, he had stated as
under:-
"XXXXXXX by Sh. Ashok Popli, Advocate for
respondents no. 1and 2.
M/s Premium PC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. used
to maintain the account and other record in
computer. I was not operating the computer
whereas accountant used to operate the same. I
have not brought any record to show the
qualification of Mr. Rachit Sharma. I do not know
whether the employer used to deduct the income
tax from the salary of the employee. I have no
knowledge whether Form-16 under IT Act was
issued to the deceased. The company is not in
existence as on date as it was closed on
13.10.2016. I joined the company in July-2015.
Mr. Rachit Sharma joined the company after me.
I am not sure. There was attendant register of the
company, which was being maintained bio metric.
I have not brought any record regarding
attendance etc. The detail as given in pages no. 6
& 7 of Ex. PW4/1 do not contain the name of
deceased. The same pertains to the payment made
in the bank of the deceased. I was not remitting
the payment in the bank. The incentives of the
team was deposited in the account of Mr. Rachit
Sharma, being team Leader used to distribute the
amount of incentives to his team members. The
payment towards salary used to be paid by
transfer in the bank account of the employees. It is
wrong to suggest that the salary slips are
fabricated and that the deceased was not getting
the salary as mentioned in these salary slips. It is
wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely and
the record produced by me is manipulated.
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXX by Ms. Aditi Chopra, proxy counsel for
Sh. Harish Kumar, Advocate for Ins. Co.
It is wrong to suggest that the documents
brought by me are false and fabricated and filed
in collusion with the petitioner. ( Rest I adopt the
cross examination of witness conducted by Ld.
Counel for respondents no. 1 and 2).
RO & AC." (emphasis supplied)
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that sufficient material
was not produced, and therefore, the learned MACT erred in concluding the
quantum of salary, which was taken into consideration as the basis of the
award of compensation. He states that the accident happened on 04.10.2016
and the company closed down nine days later on 13.10.2016.
9. However, the Court would note that the aforesaid deposition was
recorded on 18.12.2018 i.e. approximately twenty-six months after the
closure of the company. What was required to be produced was the proof of
payment of the monies to establish the payment of salary which was paid to
the employee through banking transaction. The claimants witness, the
erstwhile co-employee at M/s Premium PC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had denied
the suggestion that the salary slips were fabricated or that the deceased was
not getting the monies as per the salary slips. To that extent, he had
established that the salary was indeed paid to the deceased as claimed.
10. In this regard, the impugned order has held as under:-
"3. Contending that said accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by Mr. Anmol Bahal
(respondent no. 1), offending vehicle was
owned. by Mr. Jeewan Mohan Bahal
(respondent no. 2) and insured with United
India Ins. Co. ltd. (respondent no. 3),
petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 80 lacs as
compensation from the respondents along with
interest @ 18% per annum from date of filing
claim petition, till realization of amount. An
Interim award of Rs. 50,000/-- has also been
prayed for.
10. Petitioner has examined PW4, Mr. Kapil
Garg, who proved the salary slips of victim for
the month from June-2016 to September-16
supporting with certificate under Section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act collectively Ex. PW4/1.
Though this witness has been examined at
length, but nothing material has come to
disbelieve testimony, of this witness. Therefore
income of the victim is taken as per last drawn
salary i.e. salary slip of September -2016 after
deduction 10% standard income tax for the
purpose of calumniation of future income and
keeping in view, documents available and
proved on record, a total compensation of Rs.
95,32.000/- which includes 21 months interest
@9% per annum, is awarded to the petitioners,
details of which are mentioned in the above
proforma."
11. The testimony led by the appellant has established that the salaries as
claimed, were being paid to him. Therefore, the same being taken as the
basis for the computation of the compensation cannot be faulted with.
12. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
13. Statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be refunded to
the insurance company.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 27, 2019
AB
