Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
ASHA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
Through: Mr. Naresh C. Sharma and Mr. Chetan Swarup, Advs. for R1.
Mr. Soumik Mazumdar, Adv. for R3.
1. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount against the impugned award dated 31.01.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.11,73,600/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued the present appeal only on the ground that the deceased was working as a Supervisor with M/s. DKK Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.8,300/- per month as per salary certificate Ex.PW1/1. However, learned Tribunal has not considered the same, in turn assessed the 2013:DHC:4698 income as per the Schedule of minimum wages effective from 01.02.2008, as Rs.4,081/- per month applicable to a matriculate.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellants have examined Sh. Devender Kumar as PW[3] and proved the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/1. The said witness deposed that deceased was working in his company as a Supervisor from 01.06.2007 till the time of his death. He used to pay him Rs.8,300/- per month as salary.
4. To strengthen his arguments, he has relied upon a case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anisa Begum & Ors. IV (2007) ACC 97 (DB). He submits that the claimants have successfully proved the salary certificate as Ex.PW1/1 and there is no rebuttal. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has wrongly assessed the salary of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to a matriculate person.
5. Fact remains that PW[3] Sh. Devender Kumar in cross-examination has deposed that he does not have any record or voucher in respect of the salary paid to the deceased. The provident fund used not to be deducted by the Company for its employees. Moreover, he has not produced any corroborative evidence such as the attendance register or register containing entries of payment of salary to the deceased.
6. On perusal of the judgment of Anisa Begum & Ors.(supra), it is not in dispute that onus primarily lies with a person, who is trying to establish the onus. But as soon as it is done either by documentary or oral evidence it shifts to the opposition party for denial or rebuttal either by the same witness or by their own witness.
7. In the present case, the appellants have failed to establish the salary certificate Ex.PW1/1. Mere issuing of the Salary certificate does not serve the purpose in the absence of any corroborative evidence. PW[3] Director of the Company did not produce any record pertaining to salary, attendance sheet or PF deducted by the employer.
8. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants have failed to establish that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.8,300/- from his employer.
9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to enhance the compensation amount.
10. Consequently, instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J. SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 Jg/sb