- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : A motor accident claimed the life of the soulmate of P.W.2 in fortuitous circumstances as known to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). persuaded by the post situation of the loss of the bread-earner of the family P.Ws. 1 and 2(mother and widow of the deceased) preferred a Claim Petition under the said Act before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katwa, on 9.4.2007.
(2.) AFTER having considered the evidence of both the mother and widow of the deceased (P. Ws. 1 and 2), applying the principal of notional income the Tribunal concluded that as the income earned from the job of agricultural work was not satisfactorily proved the amount was assessed at Rs. 1,79,500/- towards compensation. The break up value of the same which we find from the tail-end of the judgment and order under appeal is as follows : - Rs.92,250/- for the widow of the deceased arid Rs. 87.250/- for his mother. Both the break up amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum since the date of filing of the Claim Application, i.e. 9.4.2007. We have heard Shri Banerjee in support of the Appeal who has placed before us two Division Bench decisions in the case of Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. v. Chhatelal Chowdhury and Anr. reported in (2007)1 WBLR (Cal) 596 and in the case of Smt. Sabita Singha and Ors. v. M/s. National Council of Regional Scheme Centre and Anr. reported in (2007)1 WBLR (Cal) 184 to show that where there is mention of any iota of income of the deceased, it cannot be assessed - on the notional income basis. Shri Banerjee has further referred to another Division Bench decision of our Court in the case of Bilasini Mondal v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in III (2003) ACC 137 (DB) in support of his claim that in a case of compensation strict proof with regard to the production of the income cannot be expected. Shri Banerjee has also referred to the paucity of the rate of interest which was assessed by the Tribunal and has submitted that since the widow of the deceased lost her husband just within four months of her marriage, she had the whole life before her and such small amount of interest quantified by the Tribunal would not compound her misery. Shri Goswami, learned senior Counsel with Shri Maitra for the Insurance Company, has opposed the submissions of Shri Banerjee. According to Shri Goswami, the Award has already been paid and the identity of the truck in question which is involved in the accident has not been proved. Shri Goswami has further submitted that so far as the question of amount is concerned, as there was no evidence in support of the income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the same. With regard to the question of rate of interest, he submitted that already retrospective effect has been given by the Tribunal and as such no interference in this Appeal is required.
(3.) AFTER we have heard Shri Banerjee and Shri Goswami for the respective parties, we find that in view of the decisions in Smt. Sabita Singha and Ors. (supra) and Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. (supra), this question is no longer res integra. Where there is evidence of an income which remains uncontroverted and as rightly pointed by Shri Banerjee that the evidence of the mother of the deceased (P.W.1) with regard to the quantum of income has not been controverted by the Insurance Company by way of producing any witness or effective cross-examination, it stands that the deceased has earning of Rs.3,000/-per month. The Tribunal had entered into the discussion that in the absence of any documentary proof or any solid documents to show the income, he was assessed on notional basis cannot stand to reason as has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Bilasini Mondal (supra), as it is quite natural in rural area that person engaged in agricultural labour is not expected to possess any documentary evidence in support of his income or any corroborative papers of his claim. We are inclined to accept the amount of income as Rs. 3,000/- as even in those days when the incident took place in the year 2006, the minimum income of a person can be taken to be Rs. 100/- per day. By this reckoning Rs.3,000/- per month is not exaggerated sum [see Laxmi Devi and Qrs. v Mohammad Tabbar and Anr. reported in (2008)2 WBLR (SC) 585]. After we have concluded that the notional income assessed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained we would quantify the same as Rs. 3,000/-which if multiplied by 12 would take us to Rs. 36,000/-, less one-third, comes to Rs. 24,000/-. We find from unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as also the documentary evidence that the deceased was around 24-year-old. As such, the Tribunal has very correctly applied the multiplier of 17 and therefore, Rs. 24,000/-multiplied by 17 comes to Rs. 4,08,000/-. To this, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. of Rs. 9,500/- would be added. So. the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,17,500/-.;