- (1.) QUESTION of application of notional income, that too fixing an amount beneath the ceiling; and awarding interest with a default clause not on regular basis are two aspects of the Appeal which have been canvassed.
(2.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raiganj, Uttur Dinujpur, in connection with M.A. C. Case No 294 of 1998 by its impugned Judgment and Order under Appeal dated 01.03.2006 after concluding that the deceased husband of P.W.1 could be classified under the notional income group as the income of the deceased from agriculture could not be quantified assessed, awarded the yearly amount to be Rs.12,000/- and after necessary consequential directions as admissible under the law fixed the total compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- and directed in the event the said amount is not paid within a period of thirty days from the date of the Judgment, there will be a default clause of payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (27.10.1998). We have been addressed at the Bar by Sri Banerjee for the Appellant and Sri Oli Mohammad for the State of West Bengal (Police Directorate of West Bengal. Brief facts which are required for the purpose of proper recapitulation of the events leading to the filing of this Appeal days back to 05.09.1998 when the husband of the deceased Late Prafulla Sarkar met an factal accident with the Dodge police vehicle driven by D.W. Sujay Chakladar, Police Driver. The claim petition was preferred by the widow of the deceased P.W.1, Smt. Mato Sarkar on 27.10.1998. She has claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and in her deposition she had specifically stated her late husband used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month from his agricultural work. At the time of his death he was 22 years old. In her cross-examination to this effect she could not be discredited. She in fact denied the suggestion given by the State that her husband did not have any income. The fact that he was in the group of 22/23 which apart from the claim petition and the testimony of P.W.1 has been borne out from the copy of the Post Mortem Report (Ext.3).
(3.) ONCE we have had a grasp over the said issue relating to the income of the deceased husband of P.W.1, we would now see from the evidence of P.W.2, Chhedilal Sarkar, who is an eye witness to the incident. According to P.W.2 police vehicle was being driven recklessly and negligently; as a result of which the death took place. He also could not be shaken in his cross-examination. Of course D.W. 1, Sujay Chakladar, police driver of the offending vehicle, put up his defence. But the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, accepted the culpability of the offending vehicle and assessed the compensation, as rightly pointed out by Sri Banerjee for the Appellant that no Appeal against the same was preferred by the Police Directorate. As such, we can safely conclude the question of rash and negligence of the police driver (D.W.1) which resulted in the accident which that would not be a reckoning factor in respect of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This would now bring us to the assessment of the claim of the compensation made by the learned Tribunal. It has given its reason in support of its conclusion. We do not wish to reassess the same. But so far as his finding that "the deceased was merely a cultivator and no income certificate or any income register has yet been produced before the Court" is not sustainable as the Tribunal held that he has to be treated in the notional income group. Yet the Tribunal came to a finding that the income should be treated as Rs.12,000/- per annum. This is also not in accordance with the ceiling of the notional income according to Schedule- II of the said Act. In this respect we cannot abide by the finding of the Tribunal so also his conclusion that the Appellant's husband did not have any income which persuaded the learned Tribunal to conclude on the basis of notional income category. We have before us the unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 1 which has been brought before us by Sri Banerjee where income of the deceased was shown as Rs.3,000/- per month. As we have seen earlier also such deposition remained practically unchallenged. Sri Banerjee has also correctly pointed out that no contrary evidence that the deceased did not have any income was brought forth by the State. As such, we are left with no choice except to accept the amount of the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in view of the same. Now it would be required for us to assess the correct age which again we find from the evidence of the P.W.1 and from the claim petition that at the time of his death late Prafulla Sarkar was 22 years old. Of course in the Post Mortem Report (Ext.3) he was shown as 23 years. However the multiplier of 17 would contain the age difference of one year and as we have accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any contrary evidence applying the multiplier of 17 after deduction of 1/3rd amount of personal expenditure the amount would come to Rs.4,08,000/- along with loss of consortium, funeral expenses and estate at Rs.9,500/- consolidated.;