MACT Can't Disbelieve Claimant's Testimony Regarding Monthly Income In Absence Of Rebuttal Evidence By Opposing Party: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “It appears that learned tribunal while deciding the income of the claimant failed to take into notice the evidence on oath of the claimant and there was no rebuttal evidence from opposite parties to cast any doubt in respect of monthly income of the claimant.”

“Learned tribunal on his own accord conjectured about the monthly income of the claimant reduced it to Rs.9,000/- in place of Rs.14,000/- as claimed without any cogent reasons merely on the ground of absence of documentary proof of income the unrebutted sworn testimony of a witness can not be disbelieved,” Justice Srivastava added.

The above judgment came in a miscellaneous appeal in favor of the appellant, who was an Advocate, and was the victim of an accident, for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad in an accident case where an award of Rs.8,16,492 /- along with simple interest @ 6 % per annum has been passed in favor of the claimant/appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had arbitrarily decreased the Advocate's estimated monthly income from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.9,000/- without proper justification, citing the absence of documentary evidence, despite the Advocate having provided an unchallenged sworn testimony.

The Court in its observations took note that the appellant was a practicing lawyer, and became the victim of an accident due to which the thigh bone of his right leg was fractured and he also sustained injuries on several parts of the body.

The Court also noted that the appellant had to undergo several medical treatments, including surgery and bone grafting, and had incurred expenses exceeding Rs.2 lakhs, and was still undergoing treatment as an outdoor patient.

The court observed that the tribunal had granted 6% annual interest on the awarded sum, with an exception for the period from February 26, 2015, to January 18, 2017. This exception was due to the dismissal of the claim petition for default.

Thus, the Court held, “As such in my considered view the awarded amount of Rs.14,88,532/- shall carry an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.”

“Any amount earlier paid by the respondent No.2 as per Award of the learned tribunal shall be deducted and rest of amount shall be paid with interest as above within 8 weeks from the date of this order,” the Court concluded while allowing the Appeal and modifying the impugned order.

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. M.B. Lal, Adv. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Adv.

For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Adv.

Case Title: Gautam Kumar Banarjee vs. Dr. C.P. Vidyarthi & Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

Case No. M.A. No.225 of 2018