Judgment Summary — B.A. Khan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

One Narender Kumar, age 38, working as a doctor in MCD, died on 29.2.1980 in a road accident involving two DTC buses. His legal representatives filed claim suit No. 158/1980 seeking compensation of Rs. 6,62,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) assessed annual dependency at Rs. 1,305 and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,56,223/-, applying a multiplier of 32 and awarding interest at 9% by an award dated 28.2.1983.

Two first appeals followed: FAO 136/1983 by the appellants and FAO 110/1983 by DTC. The appellants' first appeal resulted in an enhancement of the rate of interest to 12%, while DTC's appeal was dismissed. The present appeal (LPA) seeks further enhancement of compensation. The appellants relied on an application (C.M. 617/1993) and a communication from the Deputy Health Officer of MCD which purported to set out the deceased's salary through retirement, contending higher earnings and future prospects that would yield a much larger compensation figure. The First Appellate Court rejected the application and disregarded the document; this dismissal is challenged in the current appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court could take judicial notice of the communication from the Deputy Health Officer of MCD containing projected/future salary details of the deceased when the correctness of that document had been disputed by the respondent.
2. Whether, in assessing compensation, future advancement (including pay commission revisions and other prospective salary increases) may be taken into account and, if so, on what proof.
3. Whether this court should interfere with the Tribunal's and First Appellate Court's concurrent findings on assessment of income, dependency and application of multiplier in the absence of a showing of glaring mistake or perversity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants filed C.M. 617/1993 (dated 22.2.1993) along with a communication of the Deputy Health Officer of MCD which purported to contain the deceased's salary details through retirement; they urged that judicial notice should be taken of that document.
• On the basis of the submitted document, they contended that the deceased's total earnings could have been Rs. 10,49,679.15; deducting one-third for personal expenses, annual dependency would be Rs. 72,000, and by applying a multiplier of 15, the compensation should be Rs. 10,80,000.
• They relied on certain Supreme Court judgments (including Manjushri Raha & others v. B.L Gupta & others 1977 ACJ 134; New India Assurance v. Kala Devi & others 1996 ACJ 16; DTC v. Sudershan Yadav & others 1995 ACJ 393; Susamma Thomas v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 1994 ACJ 1) to support the contention that future prospects and pay revisions can be considered when assessing income.

Respondent / Insurance Company's Position

• The respondent insurance company opposed C.M. 617/1993 and specifically disputed the correctness and the representation of the salary particulars contained in the document purportedly issued by the Deputy Health Officer.
• On that basis, the respondent maintained that the document should not be accepted or judicially noticed without proper proof of its genuineness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the established principle (as in Susamma Thomas) that future advancement in life and career of a deceased may be a valid consideration when assessing gross income. However, the court emphasized that such consideration is not automatic and cannot be taken by judicial notice without supporting evidence.

The communication purporting to show the deceased's salary through retirement (placed on record by appellants via C.M. 617/1993) was expressly disputed by the respondent insurance company. Once the correctness of that document was contested, the burden rested on the appellants to lead evidence to prove the document's genuineness and the accuracy of its contents. The appellants did not produce such evidence.

Because the document's correctness was in issue and no proof was furnished, the First Appellate Court acted within reason in rejecting the application and refusing to take judicial notice of the document. The court distinguished the authorities cited by the appellants on that basis.

Finally, the court observed that the Tribunal and the First Appellate Court had concurred on assessment of income, determination of dependency, and application of the multiplier. Absent a showing of glaring error or perversity in those findings, this court would not disturb them.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. The court refused to take judicial notice of the salary document submitted by the appellants because its correctness had been disputed and the appellants failed to lead evidence proving its genuineness.

Implications: The direct effect is that the MACT award, as modified on first appeal (including the change in interest rate), remains undisturbed. The court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's and First Appellate Court's concurrent findings on assessment of income, dependency and multiplier because no glaring mistake or perversity was shown. The opinion does not purport to lay down any novel legal principle beyond reaffirming that future prospects may be considered only upon appropriate proof and cannot be taken by judicial notice when correctness is contested.