R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE National Insurance Company Ltd. is aggrieved by the award dated 13.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1 and Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.7,34,064/ - to the claimant -respondent nos.1 to 4.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 4.1.2007 around 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. Rameshwar and his brother Girdhari Lal were walking on the road. When they reached near the farms belonging to Birju Singh and Hanuman Jangid, suddenly a Mahendra tractor bearing registration No.RJ23 RA 1747, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit Rameshwar. Consequently, he suffered grave injuries; he expired on his way to the hospital. Since the claimant -respondents lost their bread earner, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case they examined three witnesses and submitted few documents. The Court also called two witnesses on its own. However, the Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for Insurance Company, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, that there is no evidence to prove that the negligence was of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of the compensation. Secondly, there is no evidence to prove that Rameshwar had worked as a Supervisor under Mohan Lal (A.W.2). According to the learned counsel, Mohan Lal (A.W.2) is an unreliable witness as he has failed to prove the fact that he was registered as a Contractor with the Public Works Department. Moreover, he has failed to reveal the Rameshwar's qualification for working on the post of Supervisor. Thirdly, the claimants have claimed that besides working as Supervisor, Rameshwar was also working as an agriculturist. However, it is impossible for the person to work simultaneously both as a Supervisor and as an Agriculturist. Fourthly the assessment of Rameshwar's income as Rs.5,500/ - is unjustified. In fact, as his job was not clearly revealed to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should have taken his income, on notional basis, as merely Rs.15,000/ - per annum; it should have assessed the loss of dependency upon the basis of the said notional income.
(3.) ON the other hand Ms. Sangeeta Vashishth, learned counsel for the claimant -respondents has raised the following counter contentions : firstly, Girdhari Lal (A.W.3) was an eye -witness to the accident. According to his testimony, while he and his brother Rameshwar were walking on the road and while both of them saw the tractor from far away, they stepped on the side of the road. Yet the tractor being driven rashly and negligently still came and hit Rameshwar. Thus according to the testimony of Girdhari Lal (A.W.3), the negligence of driver of the tractor stands proven. Secondly, Mohan Lal (A.W.2) has clearly claimed that he is a registered contractor with the Public Works Department. Further he not only claimed that Rameshwar was working with him on the post of Supervisor, but has also proven the salary certificate (Ex.17) issued by him. According to the salary certificate (Ex.17) Rameshwar was paid Rs.5,500/ -. Although the claimants have claimed his monthly salary to be Rs.10,000/ -, the learned Tribunal has taken his salary merely as Rs.5,500/ - on the basis of said salary certificate (Ex.17). Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in not taking his income on a notional basis. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award.;