ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE victim was a divorcee. He had- no issue. He died in the unfortunate accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent No.1. The mother of the victim prayed for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The mother examined herself as witness. According to her, the victim was an employee of Indian Airlines. After the untimely demised of his father, he left his job. He was ailing also at that time. He thereafter joined his father's business and was earning Rs. 3340/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of income and thus assessed the annual income notionally at Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal deducted l/3rd of the income and calculated the compensation taking annual net income at Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5, considering the age of the applicant. The Tribunal awarded at the rate of 8% p.a. We are told that the claimant received the compensation amount together with interest, as claimed by Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned counsel, appearing for the Insurance Company.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Indranil Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned Judge should have relied upon the oral evidence led by the appellant which could not be shaken in the cross-examination. Mr. Chakraborty further contends that even if the Tribunal was not fully satisfied with the evidence as to the income of the victim, the Tribunal could have applied the ratio decided in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. v. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr, reported in 2008(2) WBLR (SC) 585. Pertinent to note, the victim died in the accident on September 22, 2003. With regard to multiplier. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the Tribunal should have applied the correct multiplier as per the Second Schedule to the said Act of 1988. The Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier considering the age of the mother and not the victim which was not the scheme of the Second Schedule referred to above.
(3.) WE have also heard Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned counsel, appearing for the Insurance Company. We find justification in the submission of Mr. Chakraborty on the first issue, however, join on the second issue.;