JUDGMENT Vinay Joshi, J. - Heard. 2. admit. 3. By consent of both the learned counsel heard fnally. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 4.8.2018 passed in Motor accident Claims Petition No. 82 of 2015 by the learned Member Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur, (3) Judgment F .a. 2728-2021 District ahmednagar, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sharad Tanpure have applied to the Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of Sharad in vehicular accident dated 29.01.2015. It was the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) that while deceased Sharad was proceeding by riding on a motorcycle, ofending vehicle namely truck bearing Registration No. MH-17-T-5150 gave a forceful dash from behind to the motorcycle, resulting into the death of Sharad. The ofending vehicle was owned by respondent No.7 Babasaheb, whilst it was driven by respondent No.6 Vijay Giri and was insured with the appellant company. The Tribunal held that since the deceased was not wearing Helmet at the time of accident, he had contributed negligence to the extent of 20% and rest negligence was on the part of the truck driver. On the basis of evidence adduced on the point of income of deceased, Tribunal by following settled norms has assessed compensation and on reducing 20% thereof has awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 29, 44,119/- along with future interest. 6. In appeal, insurer took various defences. It is argued that the Tribunal seriously erred in holding that the truck driver was negligent to the extent of 80%. according to insurer, the claimants have not established the involvement of ofending truck in the accident. Besides that, some other grounds afecting the fgure of compensation have been raised. 7. The initial submission is about non-involvement of ofending truck and in the alternative, about the extent of negligence fxed by the Tribunal. It is argued that though the accident took place on 29.01.2015, however, the F.I.R was belatedly lodged on 06.02.2015 and therefore, involvement of ofending truck is doubtful. It is canvassed that the claimants in collusion with owner and driver of the truck, have falsely shown involvement of ofending truck. True, the F.I.R has been lodged after seven days of occurrence but that cannot be a decisive factor. It is canvassed that the claimants in collusion with owner and driver of the truck, have falsely shown involvement of ofending truck. True, the F.I.R has been lodged after seven days of occurrence but that cannot be a decisive factor. The claimant-widow led evidence on afdavit, wherein she stated that at the relevant time ofending truck bearing Registration No. MH-17-T-5150 gave a dash to the motorcyclist from behind. The claimant has examined (PW-3) police head constable Chavan, who has investigated the crime. It is his evidence that after accident, he has investigated the matter in which he found the involvement of the ofending truck on which he obtained information of owner from the ofce of Regional Transport Ofce and then seided the truck. Precisely, investigating ofcer has stated about the involvement of the ofending truck. Besides that, the claimants have examined witness Bapusaheb Gore, who claims to be an eye-witness to the accident. It is his evidence that at the relevant time the ofending truck bearing registration No. MH-17-T-5150 came in a high speed and gave a dash to the motorcycle. The truck driver remained on the spot for some time but then fed. It is his evidence that he has followed the truck and noted registration number. These, two witnesses have stated about the involvement of Truck, however there is nothing to discard their testimonies. 8. While challenging involvement of ofending vehicle the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of anil and Others Versus New India assurance Co. Ltd and Others 2018(1) T.a.C. 355 (S.C.). True in said case, involvement of ofending truck was denied, however, the case is distinguishable on facts. In said case, there was delay of more than (6) Judgment F .a. 2728-2021 one month in lodging FIR. The deceased was the brother of the owner of ofending tractor. There was no record to indicate that death was outcome of accident. In such a peculiar facts it was held that involvement of ofending vehicle was not proved. However, in case at hand as discussed above, on the date of occurrence itself Sharad died as well as the M.L.C papers and post mortem notes bears reference about accidental death, therefore the said decision would not help to the appellant to any extent. 9. Pertinent to note that, a driver of truck gave his evidence at (Exh.80). However, in case at hand as discussed above, on the date of occurrence itself Sharad died as well as the M.L.C papers and post mortem notes bears reference about accidental death, therefore the said decision would not help to the appellant to any extent. 9. Pertinent to note that, a driver of truck gave his evidence at (Exh.80). He deposed that, at the relevant time, the motorcyclist in a bid of avoiding pit abruptly came in front of the truck resulting into accident. He deposed that, since a mob was gathered, he scared and ran away. The evidence led by the driver of truck as regards to the involvement of ofending truck supports the claimants' case. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer argued that, there was collusion in between them, however, it cannot be presumed without any material. On the date of accident itself, post mortem was conducted on the dead body. Post mortem note ( Exh. 42) prepared on the same day bears reference (column No.9), that it was an accidental death. Moreover, on the date of incident itself, panchnama of the scene of ofence was carried out showing the place of occurrence. M.L.C was registered on the very day disclosing that it was an accidental death arising out of road trafc accident. In the circumstances, there is no reason to discard claimants/applicants evidence on the point of involvement of the ofending truck. Moreover, the involvement is fortifed by the evidence of driver of truck. On the point of contributory negligence, the appellant has relied on the decision of Madras High Court in Gunasekaran Versus Dinesh and another 2020 aCJ 2514. In said case as motorcyclist was not holding valid driving licence and was not wearing Helmet therefore his negligence was held to the extent of 20%. The said case would not assist the appellant rather support the decision of Tribunal of holding deceased liable to some extent for not wearing Helmet. 10. On the point of negligence, the Tribunal held that deceased was negligent to the extent of 20%, as he has not worn Helmet at the time of accident. The concerned accident took place, while the deceased was proceeding from Shrirampur to Bableshwar. The panchnama of the scene of ofence discloses that while deceased was proceeding from East to West, the accident occurred in southern portion of the road i.e. correct side of the motorcyclist. The concerned accident took place, while the deceased was proceeding from Shrirampur to Bableshwar. The panchnama of the scene of ofence discloses that while deceased was proceeding from East to West, the accident occurred in southern portion of the road i.e. correct side of the motorcyclist. It is applicant's case that dash was given by truck from behind therefore obviously, the major blame lies to the share of truck driver. The driver of truck in his evidence has not specifcally denied that they were proceeding in same direction. admittedly, deceased was not wearing Helmet at the relevant time. The Tribunal has considered these facts and held that, it is a case of contributory negligence where 20% negligence goes to the deceased. Considering all these aspects, the said fnding cannot be faulted with. 11. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, the deceased was serving as Lab assistant in the High School run by Shrirampur Education Society. The claimants have examined Head master of the High School namely arun Vetal ( Exh.52). He deposed that deceased Sharad was in the permanent service of High School on the post of Lab assistant and was drawing salary of Rs. 25, 327/- per month. In support of said contention, he has produced salary certifcate ( Exh.54) of December, 2014. Besides that, he has produced salary bills as well as Bank account extract to show the disbursement of salary. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve said evidence. Still, the appellant has disputed the salaried income of the deceased by contending that the claimants have not produced income tax returns and therefore, salary certifcate cannot be believed. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Indiro Devi and others aIR 2018 Supreme Court 3107. The facts of the said case were such that salary certifcate as well as income tax returns were produced. In that context, it is observed that, only on the basis of salary certifcate, income cannot be determined. There is no proportion to support the contention that production of Income Tax Returns is must. 12. Then it is argued that after demise of Sharad his widow was appointed on compassionate basis. On that count, it is argued that since widow was in service, there shall not be addition on account of future prospects. There is no proportion to support the contention that production of Income Tax Returns is must. 12. Then it is argued that after demise of Sharad his widow was appointed on compassionate basis. On that count, it is argued that since widow was in service, there shall not be addition on account of future prospects. The said submission is totally devoid of merits because the widow is earning salary for the services rendered by her. Since there was a avenue to get employment she was appointed on compassionate ground which has no relevance with the assessment of compensation. Then, it is argued that the tribunal has wrongly added monthly Rs. 1000/- towards the agricultural income of the deceased, in addition to the salaried income of Rs. 25,327/- per month. It requires to be noted that the claimants have produced several revenue extracts showing that the deceased was jointly holding agricultural land along with his brothers. Certainly, due to his demise, there is managerial loss. The tribunal has considered very reasonable agricultural income of Rs. 1000/- per month which is quite appropriate. 13. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer took me through the attendance book produced by the Head master of the School where deceased was employed. It is argued that though accident occurred on 29.01.2015, however, on that day deceased has signed on the muster and therefore, case of accident is doubtful. admittedly, on 29.01.2015, accident occurred and on the very day Sharad died as well as post mortem was conducted. as per the claimants case, accident took place in the afternoon at around 12.15 p.m at a distance of 15 K.M from the School. There is every possibility that deceased after signing muster in early hours has left school to attend the marriage. Therefore, no fuss can be made on the point that on the date of death, deceased has signed on the muster role because his post mortem report prepared on the very day is a matter of record. 14. On re-assessment of entire oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the Tribunal has rightly considered all the issues and assessed compensation by using settled parameters in the feld. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. all Civil applications are disposed of accordingly. [ VINaY JOSHI, J. ] 1. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. all Civil applications are disposed of accordingly. [ VINaY JOSHI, J. ] 1. The learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that the insurance company desires to challenge this order before the Supreme Court. Therefore, he seeks stay to the implementation of this order. 2. The other side has opposed the prayer. 3. The insurance company took a defence of non-involvement of the vehicle in the accident which was negated by the Tribunal as well as in this appeal. Considering the nature of the defence, the amount deposited by the company in this Court shall not be disbursed for a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the claimants are entitled for withdrawal of the entire amount.