Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;) Payal Bansal & Ors vs Naresh & Ors on 17 December, 2014
1
FAO No.2609 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2609 of 2011
Date of Decision:17.12.2014
Payal Bansal and others
.Appellants
Versus
Naresh and others
.Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH
Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate with
Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3-
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
NAVITA SINGH, J.
1. The appellants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation which the Tribunal assessed at Rs.5,01,400/- on account of the death of Lalit Mohan Gupta, who died in a road side accident, which happened on 11.10.2007.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that the income of the deceased was assessed too low and he was held to be earning only Rs.4200/- per month though there was sufficient evidence on record to show that he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month while working with M/s Anand Raj Construction and Development Private Ltd. (for short the firm).
3. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the order dated 16.8.2013, whereby notice was given to the firm to produce a responsible person in the court along with service record of the deceased. He then referred to the proceedings of 23.10.2013 when the statement of Senior Manager of the firm was recorded who produced the documents (Annexure A1 to A6). Learned counsel contended that from the documents produced by the Senior Manager of ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 FAO No.2609 of 2011 the firm, it was clear that the deceased had been appointed by the firm at the salary pleaded by the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3, argued that nothing was proved from the documents produced on record, especially because those were not taken in additional evidence and no opportunity was given to the Insurance Company to cross examine the person who brought the document. It was further contended that the documents were procured ones as the witness appearing on behalf of the firm before the Tribunal stated that the deceased had joined them on 01.10.2007 whereas the appointment letter was received by the deceased on 03.10.2007, which was clear from his signatures on Annexure A3. Also Annexure A5 shows the date of joining as 03.10.2007. The accident occurred on 11.10.2007. It was, therefore, not believable that the firm paid Rs.10,00,000/- as an ex-gratia payment to the family of the person who had worked with them only for 8 days. Also Annexure A6 does not show as to when the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was made and by which mode. It simply says that it was full and final settlement. Nothing is shown that any cheque was received by widow of Lalit Mohan Gupta and the same was enchased.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also argued that none of the documents produced on the file bore any seal of the Company or even the name of authorized signatory. Only the words `authorized signatory' were written. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that some of the documents were on the letter head of the firm and also bore the signatures of the deceased and, therefore, those could not be prepared later on.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company then argued that the documents Annexure A-4 showed that the application for appointment was made by the deceased on 3.10.2007. It is, therefore, not believable that he was ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 FAO No.2609 of 2011 appointed on the day he applied for the job and he joined on the same day. How the entire process was completed on 3.10.2007 itself is not explained. The employee of the firm who appeared before the Tribunal stated that it was a large firm having about 150 employees. It is, therefore, absolutely un-understandable as to how it happened that Lalit Mohan Gupta applied for appointment on 3.10.2007 and also joined service on the same day.
7. It was also rightly argued by learned counsel for the appellants that widow of the deceased stated that the tax was deducted at source by the employer but the appellants did not bother to produce any income tax return of the deceased either relating to the salary received earlier by him from other job and/or later on. The deceased mentioned in his application form about different employments, last being from August 2006 to November 2006 at a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. The income tax returns were either not filed which was in contravention of law or those were intentionally withheld.
8. Also PW4 appeared for the firm to prove that the deceased was an employee of the firm but surprisingly the firm produced a witness who was not conversant with the facts. He did not know anything about the deceased. He did not know when he joined, whether letter of intent was issued to him, for how long the deceased worked with the firm and even whether the deceased had joined the firm or not. He said that he had not brought the record. It is absolutely unbelievable as to why a person was called from the firm by the appellants, when he failed to bring any record relating to the deceased and also did not know the facts. To fill up the lacuna, Annexures A1 to A6 were produced in this Court, which cannot be relied upon for the reasons given above.
9. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that nothing was awarded to the widow towards loss of consortium and also nothing was given to the appellants for loss of love and affection. Learned counsel for ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4 FAO No.2609 of 2011 the Insurance Company did not have any objection to that. It is, therefore, ordered that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, in addition to the compensation already awarded, shall be given to the widow as loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- cumulatively on account of loss of love and affection.
10. The amount assessed by the Tribunal on account of income shall remain the same and the total amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/- under the conventional heads. The enhanced amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall bear interest @ 6% per annum.
11. The appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.5,01,400/- to Rs.7,01,400/-.
(NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE 17.12.2014 Ishwar Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document