Smt. Manju Devi Ors v. Jogindra Singh & Ors

4. Kum. Navita Pahadia d/o Late Shri Hulsaram, aged about 11

5. Kum. Pinki Pahadia d/o Late Shri Hulsaram, aged about 10

6. Davendra Singh Pahadia S/o Late Shri Hulsaram, aged about 5 years (Respondent Nos.2 to 6 all minors through their natural guardian mother Smt. Manju Devi w/o Late Shri Hulsaram)

7. Smt. Barji Devi w/o Late Shri Sohanlal (since deceased) (All are r/o Mohalla Kagdiwada, Tijara, Alwar) ---Respondents/Claimants

8. Jogendra Singh s/o Shri Sheo Narain, r/o village Khedi Hoshdapur, Police Station Jhajhar, Distt. Jhajhar (Haryana) (Driver of Qualis No.HR-35C-4545)

9. Net Ram Jain s/o Shri Mahadev Jain, r/o Director of Jain West and Lease Finance, Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (Haryana) present resident of Mohalla Nalapura, Police Station Narnaul, District Mahender Garh (Haryana) (Registered Owner of Qualis No.HR-35C-4545) ----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. S. Arya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order [2025:RJ-JP:24714] (2 of 6) [CMA-131/2010] 04/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") against the award dated 22.09.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT/learned Tribunal') in MACT Claim No.761/2008 titled as "Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Jogindra Singh & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent was allowed and a compensation of Rs.19,64,352/- was awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

25.03.2006, the deceased Hulsaram was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-14-42M-0975 when a Qualis bearing registration No.HR-35-C-4545 hit the said motorcycle. The motorcyclist was injured and died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.

3. Non-claimant/respondent No.8 (Jogendra Singh, driver) and non-claimant/respondent No.9 (Netram Jain, owner) filed a joint written statement, alleging that the accident occurred due to the deceased’s own negligence and denied any liability, contending that the vehicle was insured.

4. Non-claimant/appellant (the Insurance Company) also denied the averments made in the petition, attributing negligence to the deceased and stating that there was no negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle, and that the same driver did not hold a valid driving license for the insured vehicle, which was a breach of the policy terms, hence, no liability is fastened upon them. [2025:RJ-JP:24714] (3 of 6) [CMA-131/2010]

5. To substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined Smt. Manju Devi (AW-1) and Chauthmal (AW-2) in oral evidence and produced exhibited documents marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-18.

6. Whereas, despite being granted an opportunity, the non- claimant/appellant failed to lead any evidence.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the relevant facts, determined the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,390/- per month. The learned Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 17, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 19,64,352/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants/respondents.

8. That the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant pertains to the salary certificate (Ex - 17) of the deceased-Hulsaram. Learned counsel for the non- claimant/appellant submits that the salary certificate presented before the learned Tribunal does not contain a dispatch number or date, therefore, the said certificate cannot be treated conclusive to prove the income of the deceased-Hulsraram as Rs.8,390/-. He further submits that in view of the appended note to the said salary certificate, it ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the income of the deceased should be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and consequently, the impugned award may be modified. [2025:RJ-JP:24714] (4 of 6) [CMA-131/2010]

9. Per contra, Mr. Anil Jain, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents, supported the impugned order. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned award, therefore, no interference is required in the present appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased-Hulsaram lost his life in a motor accident dated 25.03.2006. It is also duly established that the deceased-Hulsaram was posted as a Constable in the Rajasthan Police and his age at the time of accident was 33 years. The learned Tribunal also considered Exhibit-17, which is a salary certificate issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarter Jaipur), wherein his last drawn salary was mentioned as Rs.8,390/-. The said certificate was exhibited by the claimants/respondents, and no cross-examination was conducted by the non-claimant/appellant with regard to the alleged submissions made in this respect.

12. Further, the claimants/respondents have produced Ex-17 i.e. salary certificate dated 05.10.2007 which shows the last drawn salary of the deceased as Rs. 8,390/-. It is reflected from the cross-examination of the deceased’s wife Manju Devi (AW-1), dated 07.07.2008, that there was no cross-examination on the aspect of the salary not being Rs. 8,390/- as mentioned in the said salary certificate (Ex-17) issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) and there was no material produced before the learned Tribunal to contradict the same. [2025:RJ-JP:24714] (5 of 6) [CMA-131/2010] Thus, there is no material placed on record even now to discredit the said salary certificate, and the non-claimant/appellant has miserably failed to impeach the same.

13. It is a well established principle of law, that if a document issued by a Government Authority qua salary certificate is produced by an employee and the said salary certificate is admitted in evidence without protest; and the employee is not cross examined on the said salary certificate, then the initial burden to prove the contents of the said salary certificate stands discharged, and the onus to disprove the said document shifts upon the other party who is asserting otherwise. In the present case, the appellant failed to lead any evidence to prove the fact that the said salary certificate is inadmissible in law or incorrect/untrustworthy in any manner. In the absence of such attempt being made, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant lack merit.

14. In accident cases governed by the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the strict compliance of the rules of the Evidence Act, 1872, as required in civil or criminal trials does not apply. Courts rely upon a probabilistic approach, emphasizing, fairness and social justice over strict proof for awarding a just compensation. Therefore, strict proof under the Evidence Act, 1872, is not a pre-requisite for awarding a just compensation in motor accident claims. [2025:RJ-JP:24714] (6 of 6) [CMA-131/2010]

15. It is further evident from the record that it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from arbitrariness, perversity or any legal infirmity.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merits.

17. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

18. The record of the learned Court below be sent back. Seema/44 (MANEESH SHARMA),J