The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent judgment, emphasized that a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) cannot undermine a claimant's sworn testimony on income without rebuttal evidence from the opposing party. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, presiding over the case, noted that the tribunal erred in discrediting the claimant's income without considering the unchallenged evidence on oath and the absence of opposing evidence.
The case involved an Advocate who was the victim of an accident. The MACT in Dhanbad had awarded compensation of Rs. 8,16,492 along with 6% per annum interest to the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the tribunal had reduced the Advocate's claimed monthly income from Rs. 14,000 to Rs. 9,000 without sufficient justification, citing the lack of documentary proof.
Justice Srivastava criticized the tribunal for conjecturing about the claimant's income without proper reasoning. The court stressed that the absence of documentary proof should not lead to disbelief in the unrebutted sworn testimony of the witness. The judgment highlighted that the claimant, being a practicing lawyer, had provided testimony that went unchallenged, and the tribunal's arbitrary reduction of income lacked justification.
The court took note of the appellant's unfortunate accident, resulting in a fractured thigh bone and injuries across various body parts. The Advocate had undergone extensive medical treatments, including surgery and bone grafting, incurring expenses exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite ongoing outpatient treatment, the tribunal had arbitrarily decreased the compensation amount without considering the Advocate's challenging circumstances.
Regarding the interest awarded, the court acknowledged the 6% annual interest but made an exception for the period from February 26, 2015, to January 18, 2017, when the claim petition was dismissed for default. The court reasoned that the awarded amount of Rs. 14,88,532 should carry 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition's institution until the actual payment.
In the final verdict, the court directed the deduction of any previously paid amounts by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with the tribunal's award. The remaining amount, along with the prescribed interest, was ordered to be paid within eight weeks from the date of the court's order.
This judgment underscores the importance of considering a claimant's sworn testimony, especially in the absence of rebuttal evidence. It criticizes the tribunal's reliance on a lack of documentary proof as grounds for reducing compensation and highlights the need for a fair assessment of the claimant's circumstances, particularly in cases involving personal injury and substantial medical expenses. The court's detailed analysis ensures a just and equitable resolution, addressing the shortcomings in the tribunal's decision and providing relief to the appellant.
TAGS: Claimant's testimony Rebuttal evidence Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Sworn testimony Monthly income Documentary proof
