Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 06.09.2016, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. In the instant appeal, despite being served, none came present on behalf of the respondents.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the relevant record minutely.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Ex.P1, the salary certificate to held that the deceased was drawing carry home salary of Rs.20,787/- per month, as this document was neither officially stamped nor bearing the signatures of the concerned official. PW3-Tarsem Lal, Store Keeper, PUNSUP also admitted that he had no knowledge regarding the accounts department and salary certificate and the record produced by him was neither prepared by him nor it was prepared in his presence. He has contended that as such Ex.P1 was a procured document which could not be read into the evidence. He has further contended that though as per the claimants deceased was working as a driver with PUNSUP, but no driving license of the deceased was produced on record to prove that he was working as a driver. The insurance company had produced Ex.RX/5, the driving license of the deceased, which had been renewed upto 19.01.2011 whereas the accident had taken place on 03.12.2012. As such deceased was not holding a valid and effective license and was not the driver as alleged, on the date of the accident. He has argued that as such, the Tribunal could have at the most taken the minimum wages into consideration to assess the income of the 4 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:067155 FAO-639-2017 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:067155 deceased which were approximately Rs.52,00/- per month at that time. He has contended that the insurance company had also taken a specific plea that at the time of the accident, respondent No.4 driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license to drive the same. Both driver and owner of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex-parte before the Tribunal and despite sending of the legal notices Ex.RX/1 and RX/2, no driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was produced on record. He has urged that it is the duty of the owner and driver to produce the license of the driver before the Tribunal so that genuineness of the license could be proved and as such adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondents No.1 and 2. He has prayed that as such the present appeal is required to be accepted and the quantum of compensation should be suitably reduced and recovery rights be also granted to the insurance company.

Besides that Rs.1 lakh have been granted as consortium to claimant No.1-Manjit Kaur and Rs.25,000/- have been granted as the funeral expenses and the total compensation of Rs.32,59,664/- (3134664+100000) has been granted.

12. I do not find substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that salary of the deceased is not proved from salary certificate Ex.P1 and his income is to be taken as that of a daily wager. To substantiate their plea that deceased was working as a driver with PUNSUP and drawing salary of Rs.20,787/- per month, the claimants have examined PW3 Tarsem Lal, Store Keeper, PUNSUP. He has produced on record the salary certificate of the deceased Satnam Singh as Ex.P1 which had been duly issued by the District Manager, PUNSUP, Ferozepur. Thus, the salary certificate Ex.P1 has been produced by the witness, who is also an employee of the PUNSUP. There is no such material on record from which it can be made out that Ex.P1 is 6 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:067155 FAO-639-2017 (O&M) -7- 2023:PHHC:067155 a procured document. Perusal of his testimony further reveals that he has tendered into in his examination-in-chief his affidavit Ex.PW3/A, in which he has deposed that he had brought the Pay Salary Register of the deceased Satnam Singh, who was working as a driver in the department, which is Ex.P1. He had seen the photocopy of Pay Salary which is correct according to Register of Pay Salary. Even though, this salary certificate has not been prepared by him, yet it has been produced by him being an employee of the PUNSUP department and no evidence in rebuttal has been produced on record by the respondents to prove that the same was a procured document and was not genuine. Thus, from the salary certificate Ex.P1, it stands proved that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.20,787/- per month. If driving license of the deceased has not been produced on record then this does not lead to the inference that he was not employed as a driver with PUNSUP, when no contrary evidence to the evidence led by the claimants has been produced. Otherwise also, proof of driving license of the deceased was not required to prove his employment with PUNSUP as driver. So far as driving license of deceased Ex.PX/5 is concerned, which has been produced on record by insurance company to prove that it had expired on 19.01.2011, before the date of accident, there is nothing on record that it had not been renewed after 19.01.2011 till happening of the accident in question.