Mact
Rajesh
(Querist) 28 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
dear sirs,a claim case was filed in mact after the death of the husband age 62 yrs by the wife age 60 years ,in the petition the deceased was shown as the shopkeeper earning abt 15000 per month(infact the deceased was a retired person getting 10000 pension)however no evidence of income was given in the court except that of a petitioner as well as one eye witness only,now the evidence of respondent is going who has not given any evidence.is there any remedy to prove the income of deceased at this stage?
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 28 March 2013
The Thane district Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (TDMACT) has held that a claim can be granted even if the proof of service and income is not presented in the court by the claimant.
Deciding a nine-year-old freak road accident case on July 25, Tribunal judge S Y Kulkarni awarded a sum of Rs 2,08,000 to a man from Pimplagaon village of Murbad taluka as compensation for the accidental death of his 22-year-old son in 2003.
64-year-old Laxman Kashiram Pawar told the court that his son Bhagwan was serving with one Vinod Vitthal Patil and was earning a sum of Rs 3,000 per month. On September 24, 2003 he met with an accident when he was going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle.
The owner of the motorcycle, Vinod Patil, and the insurance company with which the bike was insured were the opponents in the case.
The claimants told the court that they were entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs 4,50,000, however, for the purpose of court fee it was restricted to Rs 1,00,000 only.
Applicant's counsel G W Dhande told the court that both the unknown vehicle and the motorcycle were involved in the accident and hence the insurance company and owner of the motorcycle are liable to pay the compensation.
In his order, the judge stated that "no doubt the applicant has not filed any document on record to show that deceased was working with Vinod Patil and was earning Rs 3,000 per month. However, considering the age of the deceased and as deposed by applicant that at the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years old. I have no hesitation to hold that the notional income of the deceased, Rs 3,000 per month, can be taken into consideration.
compensation in case of death of a person calculated
In the case where the fault of the driver is not proved, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to no fault liability which is presently fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. In case the death has occurred due to the fault of the driver the compensation is calculated on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased multiplied by his income. The income for the purposes of this calculation is 50% of the actual income which deceased used to receive as the rest is deducted as the self expenditure. The state of the health of the deceased and his past health record is also taken into consideration while deciding the compensation.
Rajesh
(Querist) 28 March 2013
Sir,
Is there any scope of additional evidence so that I can prove the income.
Rajesh
(Querist) 29 March 2013
I Hv not proved the income .is there any provision of giving the evidence of income at this stage ?
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 29 March 2013
As you stated,m he was pensioner.
AS PENSION WILL GO TO HIS WIFE, you cannot prove loss of Pension to claimants [wife]
You must generate and produce proof of income from Shop.
Periodic Deposits in Bank, Vouchers of Purchases turn over with common commission / profit of 20% will prove his income of Rs. 30k p m. , and you can get compensation.
I Tax returns are not absolute proof, as everybody try to save I Tax, showing lesser income, and is accepted in many cases in MACT.
Actual income vary, and You musat prove to get higher amount. Otherwise also, as suggested by earlier experts, court will allow normal amt.
Rajesh
(Querist) 29 March 2013
Can we give addition evidence( oral or documentary) in mact in a claim petition regarding the income proof of the deceased,when our evidence is closed and the evidence of the respondent is going on.? Only the petitioner as well as one eyewitness is examined in the support of petition and the respondent has not given any rebuttal evidence.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 March 2013
He was getting pension and wife will get family pension at reduced rate. So loss of earning is there. Being pensioner and shopkeeper are two questions which can be proved separately
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 March 2013
repeated at http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/additional-evidence-77882.asp#.UVbuhDchHfM
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 April 2013
If this is repeated query then no reply from my side.
Rajesh
(Querist) 01 April 2013
Sir,
Yes it is repeated ,as no satisfactory reply was received.
Xcuse me please
Rajesh
(Querist) 01 April 2013
Dear makkad sir in fact I was waiting some detailed reply from your side only.m a big fan of u sir thanku.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 April 2013
Thanks for your appreciation.
You can definitely lead an additional evidence by moving an application thereto and law is very liberal in MACT cases. You application may be allowed but question is that if the pensioner has died, whether the pension shall also get stopped for ever or shall continue to other claimants.
If the reply is 'yes. the pension shall continue' then there is no use to move such application just to bring the pensionary income on the file but if the situation is otherwise then definitely you should move.
Rajesh
(Querist) 01 April 2013
Thanks a lot sir,
But the question is of proving the income of the deceased from his shop,as deceased is shown shopkeeper in the petition ,however the only petitioner widow of the deceased has stated that deceased was running the shop after retirement but we were failed to give any evidence oral or documentary .that is why is this query is ,for any remedy at this stage .
Thanku
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 April 2013
You have already led oral evidence in this regard. That shall suffice if you have no documentary evidence in hand. It is not good to precure false bills and vouchers at this stage when the court shall be very vigilant towards additional evidence. Leave upon your interpretation now.
Rajesh
(Querist) 01 April 2013
Thanku sir
