Mumbai: Observing that “Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine income”, the Bombay High Court has enhanced compensation from Rs1.76 crore to over Rs2.7 crore for the family of a man who died in a car accident on Dec 15, 2012.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse last week directed the owner of the offending car, Prabha Rajendra Gupta, and the insurance company, Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd, to jointly and severally pay the award to the family of Vilas Deshpande, 46.
“We find that Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine the real income of the deceased,” the justices said. “The reason is that Form 16 has been signed and generated by the employer... There is no evidence produced by the respondents to show that the income of the deceased was contrary to what is shown in Form 16.”
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Mr Deshpande’s wife Anjali, 48, their three children, who were minors at the time of the accident, and parents challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Feb 17, 2018.
The family had approached the MACT claiming compensation of over Rs2.3 crore, stating that Mr Deshpande was working as a senior manager with Ultratech Cement Limited at Mumbai and was earning approximately Rs1.34 lakh per mensem besides allowances of Rs20,000.
The insurance company blamed the driver of the car in which Mr Deshpande was travelling for the accident and denied that the offending car was speeding.
The MACT, however, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs1,76,08,400 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation of the amount.
The tribunal calculated the award based on the salary amount specified in the last salary slip. It did not consider Form 16, which showed income more than the salary specified in the slip, stating that there were always ups and downs in a business and so it would not be proper to consider the income in addition to the salary.
While increasing the award, the High Court noted that “compensation has to be fair, just and equitable” and the tribunal had “erred in not accepting the income of the deceased as shown in Form 16”.
Relying on the employer’s letter, the court said it recorded that compensation payable to the deceased was revised with effect from July 1, 2012.
It also said there was “no reason to disbelieve that the deceased would have been always entitled to additional remuneration” and directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs 2,78,76,708 together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.
