United India Insurance Company Limited vs Lilly Uppal and Others

Uma Nath Singh, J.—Two days'' delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned.

This appeal by the insurer arises out of an award dated 1,6.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, in MACT Petition No. 5 of 2005, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,55,000/- in death case of a 57 years old Mechanical Engineer, said to be the owner of a cement factory.

Learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, informed that the Insurance Company was granted permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') to contest the case on merit. However, he has only one submission to make, namely, that the quantum of compensation, based on the last income tax return filed after the death of the deceased, appears to be on higher side. According to learned Counsel, in earlier income tax returns, agricultural income had not been mentioned, wherein in the last income tax return filed after the death of the deceased, the agricultural income of Rs. 80,000/- was shown.

We have carefully perused the award. The deceased was a qualified Mechanical Engineer with status family and he happened to be the owner of a cement factory, The Tribunal has taken a cautious approach. Although the total return appears to be to the tune of Rs. 1,42,400/- but the income as has been accepted is only for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. There are 3 dependents but the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd thereof and the dependency has been assessed at Rs. 80,000/-. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the appellant for the reason that in the cross examination of PW2 Lilly Uppal, widow of the deceased, no question has been put to her as regards the ownership of the agricultural land. If the Income Tax Authority has accepted the return, including the income from the agriculture, it would not be open for the Insurance Company to raise this plea at the appellate stage. That apart, looking to the totality of circumstances, we do not find the amount to be on excessive side.

Hence the F.A.O., being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.