Full Text
Translation output
,-t"
A-35 o/o 'L'l...08.201- 1
Present : Ms. Sanjela Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
+MRC Rnn"Ot *o. t5trr0t0 t<
' The petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation awarded in terms of the Award dated 2I.09.2010; on L3.03.20L0, the petitioner had suffered a road accident when he was struck by a car given driven by the respondent No. L; he had fallen down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Award in the sum of
<97,043/- had been granted in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 7.5 o/o par annum.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his salary has not been computed correctly; he was getting a monthly salary of t15,000/- which is evident from his salary slip which he has filed and which is parb of the list of documents fiIed by the petitioner on 2I.04.2009.
The injured had come to the witness box as CW L; in his testimony, the petitioner has stated that he was getting {15,000/- as salary but this doiument had not been exhibited; there is no doubt that strict rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings before the Motor
Accident Tribunal which are proceedings of a summary nature yet this laxity on the part of the petitioner does affect his claim as unless and until it had been brought to the notice of the respondent
2011:DHC:15433
.j, r-
+ about this averment of the petitioner that he was relying upon a particular document to substantiate his salary, no opportunity could have been afforded to the respondent/Insurance Company to cross-examine the witness on this aspect. It was in these circumstances that the learned Tribunal had noted that since the petitioner has not filed any proof of income, minimum wages of a graduate had been taken into account which was Rs. 4,695/- per month. This finding calls for no interference.
Award has been assailed only on this ground; no other ground has been urged.
Appeal is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 1,L,2OT1 rb
2011:DHC:15433
A-35 o/o 'L'l...08.201- 1
Present : Ms. Sanjela Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
+MRC Rnn"Ot *o. t5trr0t0 t<
' The petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation awarded in terms of the Award dated 2I.09.2010; on L3.03.20L0, the petitioner had suffered a road accident when he was struck by a car given driven by the respondent No. L; he had fallen down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Award in the sum of
<97,043/- had been granted in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 7.5 o/o par annum.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his salary has not been computed correctly; he was getting a monthly salary of t15,000/- which is evident from his salary slip which he has filed and which is parb of the list of documents fiIed by the petitioner on 2I.04.2009.
The injured had come to the witness box as CW L; in his testimony, the petitioner has stated that he was getting {15,000/- as salary but this doiument had not been exhibited; there is no doubt that strict rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings before the Motor
Accident Tribunal which are proceedings of a summary nature yet this laxity on the part of the petitioner does affect his claim as unless and until it had been brought to the notice of the respondent
2011:DHC:15433
.j, r-
+ about this averment of the petitioner that he was relying upon a particular document to substantiate his salary, no opportunity could have been afforded to the respondent/Insurance Company to cross-examine the witness on this aspect. It was in these circumstances that the learned Tribunal had noted that since the petitioner has not filed any proof of income, minimum wages of a graduate had been taken into account which was Rs. 4,695/- per month. This finding calls for no interference.
Award has been assailed only on this ground; no other ground has been urged.
Appeal is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 1,L,2OT1 rb
2011:DHC:15433
JUDGMENT