RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs SHAHAN PARVEEN & ORS

$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 3rd October, 2024
+ MAC.APP. 693/2018 & CM APPL. 30101/2018 (stay)
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
…..Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate through VC.
versus

SHAHAN PARVEEN & ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Mr. Karan Chopra & Mr. T.G. Shahi, Advocates for R-1 to 5 & 8.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Written Submissions on behalf of the respondents could not be filed as the same have been filed beyond the period of four weeks granted vide Order dated 07.03.2024 and requests that the delay may be condoned and the Written Submissions may be taken on record.
2. The Registry is directed to take the Written Submissions of the respondents on record.
MAC.APP. 693/2018
3. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the appellant to challenge the Award dated 09.05.2018 granting compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,90,000/- to the respondents.
4. The impugned Award dated 09.05.2018 has been challenged on the grounds (i) that claimants were not able to establish negligence on the part of the driver in causing accident; and (ii) that the salary of the deceased-Nafees Ahmad has been taken as Rs. 12,500/- per month without there being any supportive cogent evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no Salary Certificate or other documents produced by the respondents in support of the alleged income of the deceased-Nafees Ahmad. PW1-Shahana Parveen, wife of the deceased-Nafees Ahmad, had merely deposed that her husband was getting a salary of Rs. 12,500/- while working as Mechanical Fitter, but failed to produce any documentary evidence thereof.
6. Likewise, PW2-Rajender Singh, Proprietor of M/s R.S.J. Engineering Works where the deceased-Nafees Ahmad was employed, has produced a Salary Certificate dated 07.08.2009, Ex.PW1/13, whereby the salary has been stated to be Rs. 12,500/- per month. However, PW2-Rajender Singh in his cross-examination has neither been able to produce the Appointment Letter, the Attendance Register or the Income Tax Returns which he admittedly was paying.
7. It is, therefore, contended that the salary of the deceased-Nafees Ahmad has been wrongly taken as Rs. 12,500/-, when, in fact, the same should have been taken in accordance with the Minimum Wages for skilled workers which in 2009 was Rs. 4,358/-.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that PW1-Shahana Parveen has been categorical in her assertions that her husband-Nafees Ahmad was working as a Mechanical Fitter and was being paid Rs. 12,500/- per month, to which, there is no cross-examination. Likewise, PW2-Rajender Singh has deposed to this effect.
9. It cannot be overlooked that the deceased-Nafees Ahmad had been employed in the said capacity for 14 years and even if his delay income of Rs. 500/- per day is assessed, the same comes to Rs. 15,000/-. It is nowhere claimed that this is a forged Salary Certificate. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer has rightly relied upon the Salary Certificate and the testimony of the witnesses to take the income of the deceased-Nafees Ahmad as Rs. 12,500/-p.m.
10. Submissions heard.
11. The Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the appellant seeking grant of compensation on account of demise of Late Sh. Nafees Ahmad, in a road accident on 30.04.2009, while he was travelling a motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SQ-0340, which was hit by the offending vehicle i.e. the Truck bearing No. UP-23D-9566, being driven by the respondent No. 1/driver, in a rash and negligent manner.
12. After due investigation, the Charge-Sheet was filed in the Court while Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed in the Tribunal. The issues were framed in regard to rash and negligent on the part of the driver and in regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/legal heirs of late Sh. Nafees Ahmad. The learned Tribunal after considering the entire evidence concluded that Late Sh. Nafees Ahmad had died due to rash and negligent manner of the offending vehicle by the driver. This finding is essentially not being challenged by the Insurance Company.
13. While computing the compensation, the salary of the deceased was taken as Rs.12,500/-p.m., which is the point of grievance for the Insurance Company. To ascertain the merits of this contention, reference is made to the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners.
14. The petitioner, Ms. Shahana Parveen, (respondent No. 1) in her testimony had deposed that her husband was earning Rs.12,500/- per month by working as a Mechanical Fitter in the employment of Mr. Rajender Singh, who is doing his business under the name and style of M/s R.S J. Engineering Works and the Salary Certificate was exhibited as PW-1/13. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the suggestion was given that the Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/1 was a false and fabricated document.
15. The respondents/claimants had also examined Mr. Rajender Singh, the employer as PW-2, who had corroborated the testimony of petitioner that the deceased was in his employment as a Mechanical Fitter, for last 14 years and was last drawing the salary of Rs.12,500/-, for which he had issued the Salary Certificate dated 07.08.2009, Ex.PW-1/13. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not maintain any Attendance Register for the employees. The salary was being given in cash though he was maintaining Income Tax records, the same were not produced in the Court. The Salary Certificate, Ex.PW-1/1 was admittedly issued, after the demise of Late Mr. Nafees Ahmad, on the request of the family members.
16. The contention of the Insurance Company is that since no cogent documentary evidence had been produced in proof of the salary of the deceased; it is the Minimum Wages as prevalent in 2009, when the accident occurred that should be taken as the basis for the salary of the deceased and for calculating the compensation. While this contention may have had some merit if there was no evidence whatsoever produced on behalf of the claimants. However, considering that the employer had stepped into the witness box, to corroborate about the salary of the deceased, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal, to have overlooked or ignored the evidence, especially when the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to the contrary.
17. From the evidence as stated above, it is proved by the claimants that the husband was working as a Mechanical Fitter, a fact which has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. It has also been proved by PW-2 that he had been in the employment for about last 14 years and he had been paying the salary in cash. Considering the nature of job, it is not unbelievable that the salary may have been paid in cash for which the employer may not have had any salary record. The Insurance on the other hand, aside from giving suggestion that the Salary Certificate was fabricated, has not produced even an iota of evidence, to disprove that the deceased was not working or was not a Mechanical Fitter. Considering the vocation of the deceased, and the unrebutted evidence of the Respondent and PW-2, the assessment of the salary of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- is not unreasonable.
Conclusion
18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in the Appeal of the Insurance Company, which is hereby dismissed.
19. The pending application also stands disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 3, 2024
S.Sharma /RS