Any Certificate Duly Attested By Consular Of India Can Be Accepted As Evidence Without Examining Person Associated As Witness: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has recently observed that any certificate including salary certificates, appointment letters, etc of a person in foreign employment that has been duly attested by the Consular of India can be accepted as evidence without examining any person associated with the documents. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that as per Section 3(2)...
The Madras High Court has recently observed that any certificate including salary certificates, appointment letters, etc of a person in foreign employment that has been duly attested by the Consular of India can be accepted as evidence without examining any person associated with the documents.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that as per Section 3(2) Diplomatic and Consular (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 any document affixed, impressed, or subscribed with the seal and signature of the Consular shall be admitted in evidence without proof of seal or signature.
“With regard to admissibility of salary certificate issued by the foreign employer for the victim or the injured, it is clarified that in the event of the salary certificate / pay certificate / offer letter being endorsed by the Consulate General at the respective foreign country, it can be received in evidence without insisting upon the examination of the author of the said salary certificate or pay certificate, as the case may be,” the court said.
The court added that the salary paid by the foreign employer to the victim is akin to Section 273 of the CrPC and the court cannot insist the author of the document come and present the document in court. The court said that it was always open to the claim petitioner to adduce evidence in the manner known to the law relating to the reception of the document.
The court was hearing an appeal preferred by Oriental Insurance Company against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai. The insurance company had claimed that the accident had taken place due to the contributory negligence of Akbar Ali, the deceased.
The company also claimed that Ali was engaged in foreign employment and the tribunal had erred in simply calculating his income as per the exchange rate on the date of filing of the petition. It was also argued that granting 25% future prospects was unwarranted and the adoption of the multiplier method and fixing the remaining age of the multiplicant was also unwarranted.
The court observed that though there could not be a different yardstick between an Indian and a Foreigner/non-resident killed in a road accident in India, the court also noted that the environment prevailing in the foreign country and that in India was different. Thus, the court observed that the last known income is to be taken as a yardstick for the purpose of computation of pecuniary loss sustained by the family. The court thus held that a maximum of 15% has to be deducted from the amount mentioned in the proved salary certificate or proved document.
With respect to the Multiplier and the deductions, the court observed that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case will govern. With respect to the conversion rate, the court held that the money exchange rate prevailing on the date of filing the MCOP shall prevail.
To fix the notional income, the court observed that the salary, after the deduction of income tax was to be calculated as per the decision of the Apex Court in Shyamwati Sharma and Ors vs.Karam Singh and Ors. The court observed that the notional income shall be subjected to income tax at the rate of 30%.
The court thus reduced the compensation amount and directed the company to deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of order.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs.A.Banumathy, Mr.S.Srinivasa Ragavan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Case Title: The Branch Manager v Mrs Ramzan Begam
Case No CMA(MD) No.249 of 2021