AO/60/2020
2023 Latest Caselaw 3015 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  AO No.60 of 2020
                                  Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Zafar Siddique, counsel for the appellant.

2. Present Ms. Monika Pant, counsel for respondent no.1.

3. Present Mr. J.K. Pandey, counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Heard on admission.

5. Counsel for the appellant would submit that this is an appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred against the impugned judgment and Award dated 30.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1st Addl. District Judge, Haldwani in M.A.C.P. No.43 of 2018 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in favour of the applicant/claimant to the tune ₹ 1,88,426/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date actual payment is made.

He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not properly and correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded the compensation on lower side; that, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the relevant aspect that the applicant/claimant was an Income Tax Payer and was earning in between ₹ 34,000/- to 50,000/- per month and had filed the Income Tax Returns before the Tribunal and that because of the injury sustained in the accident, he has lost his earning capacity to some extent.

On being quizzed by the Court, learned counsel would submit that he has not submitted the complete statement of the applicant/claimant recorded in the Tribunal and would read the examination-in-chief of the applicant/claimant and on the basis of same he would submit that the applicant/claimant had not connected the Income Tax Returns allegedly filed by the applicant/appellant in the Tribunal by way of his statement on oath before that tribunal; that, however, he would admit at Bar that all the bills filed before the Tribunal had been counted for and paid by way of compensation.

6. Counsel for respondent no.1/Insurance Company would submit that the Award passed by the Tribunal is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case; that, the Income Tax Returns, as per the statement read in this Court, was not connected by the appellant in his statement before the Tribunal, therefore, the same, even if it is presumed to be a public document, could not be taken into account as a proved document.

7. Perusal of the impugned judgment/Award would reveal that the learned Tribunal has granted ₹ 10,000/- for transportation charges, ₹ 15,000/- for future medical treatment and ₹ 15,000/- towards mental pain and suffering, apart from ₹1,48,426/- for medical bills. As regards the submission that the applicant/claimant was an Income Tax Payer and was earning somewhere in between ₹ 34,000/- to 50,000/- per month, this Court finds that there is no pleading to this effect in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the statement of the applicant/claimant read in the Court is silent about the Income Tax Returns.

8. In the considered view of this Court, the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 09.10.2023 BS