- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 18th November, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,59,928/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 23rd July, 2007 to the claimant respondents, the Insurance Company has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2007, at about 8:00 PM, Mr. Lal Mohammad was going to his house, on his bicycle. While he was going over the Khatipura Bridge, an Innova Car, bearing registration No.RJ-14-UB-5005, being driven with rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle. Due to the said accident, Lal Mohammad suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalized at S.M.S. Hospital. During treatment, at about 10:30 PM, he expired. THE claimants filed a claim petition. In order to buttress their case, the claimants examined four witness and submitted eighteen documents. THE appellant neither examined any witness, nor produced any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Vigyan Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, has strenuously contended that according to Smt. Bismillah (A.W.1), her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, while he was working as "Rang Master" at R.B. Export Dying, Raghunatpuri, Jothwara. The claimants have not been able to establish this fact. In her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that the salary certificate (Ex.10) does not contain the RST number of the firm. Moreover, she has clearly stated that the said certificate was created by her lawyer. Secondly, even while appreciating the testimony of Babu Khan (A.W.2), the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that Babu Khan, in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that he neither submits any income-tax returns, nor his firm is a registered firm, nor do they maintain any accounts of the firm. Despite the said testimony, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/-. According to him, since the factum of the income could not proved through cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal should have relied upon the minimum wages, which were prevalent in the year 2008, when the alleged accident had taken place. According to the minimum wages prevalent in the year 2008, the deceased would be entitled to a payment of Rs.100/- per day. Thus, his income should have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Gita Devi & Ors. V/s. Raju Lal & Ors. [MACD 2008(2) (Raj.) 744]. Lastly, the multiplier as applied by the learned Tribunal is misplaced. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as twenty-nine years, and has applied a multiplier of eighteen. The learned Tribunal has taken the age as twenty-nine years on the basis of the birth certificate. However, according to Smt. Bismillah (A.W.1), the said birth certificate was procured after one month of the alleged accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, a multiplier of seventeen should have been applied. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award. It is, indeed, a settled position that a claim petition pending before the MACT is a civil suit; the proceeding is basically in the nature of a summary proceeding. Therefore, repeatedly, this Court has observed that the rigors of the Evidence Act are inapplicable to a claim petition [Referred to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. Vs. Devilal and Ors, 1991 ACJ 230; Shrawan Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., 1995 ACJ 337]. Moreover, the claim petition being a civil suit, needs to be proved only on the basis of probabilities. It does not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as in the case of a criminal trial. While assessing the creditworthiness of evidence, the Courts have to be sensitive to the fact that many of the documents and information would not be readily available with the claimants. Moreover, the claimants cannot be faulted for the omissions and illegalities committed by the employer. Merely because, Babu Khan (A.W.2) in his cross-examination admits that his firm was neither registered, nor filed income-tax returns, nor kept any accounts, such an omission would not be sufficient reason to doubt the existence of the firm. It is common knowledge that many of the firms engaged in printing fabrics are small scale industries which may not follow the law. Merely because the employer does not follow the law that cannot oust the claimants of their claim. In the present case, Babu Khan (A.W.2) had appeared as a witness. In his examination-in-chief, he clearly stated that Lal Mohammed was working in his firm as "Rang Master". He further stated that he was paying Lal Mohammed a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. He further stated that the salary certificate has been issued by him. Therefore, he has proven the authenticity of the certificate issued by him. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in relying upon the testimony of Babu Khan (A.W.2). Moreover, in case the Insurance Company wanted to prove the fact that the firm does not exist, it was free to lead evidence on this point. After all, when the affidavit of Babu Khan was produced, the Insurance Company had ample opportunity to lead evidence against it. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not justified in claiming that the existence of the firm was not established by the claimants.
(3.) AS far as the second contention is concerned, according to the Post-Mortem Report, the age of the deceased, Lal Mohammad, at the time of accident was twenty-five years. Thus, the application of multiplier of eighteen is justified by the learned Tribunal. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned award. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;