BANERJEE, J. - (1.) BIKASH Mondol aged about thirty six years met with a Motor Accident on February 15, 2007 under Garhbeta Police Station. He succumbed to the injury on the spot. He died leaving him surviving his widow the appellant No. 1 and two minor children being the Appellant Nos.
(2.) AND 3 and his aged mother being the Appellant No. 4. He was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation posted at Garhbeta Branch drawing a salary of Rs. 13, 697.81 on the date of the accident. The appellants claimed compensation for Rs.16 lacs from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Tribunal examined the Appellant No. 1, the widow of the deceased, one Rafikul Mondal claiming to be an eye witness, and one Samir Kundu an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation who brought the records pertaining to his employment. The widow established her claim for compensation as next to kin of the deceased. She also proved the age with the support of the Admit Card and PAN Card belonging to the deceased. In her cross examination she deposed, the victim was getting a gross salary of Rs. 4500 as a group 'D' employee. 2. Rafikul proved the accident. According to him, the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Samir proved the salary. According to him, the victim was repaying the co -operative loan and the provident fund loan that he had taken during his life time. He was also repaying his Dashera advance that was deducted. The victim was deducted at source a sum of Rs.1200 per month on account of income tax and Rs.100 on account of professional tax. However, "the professional tax" was not appearing in the affidavit of evidence that we presume, looking to the salary certificate. On perusal of the salary certificate exhibited before the Tribunal we find, the victim was getting a gross salary of Rs.13,697.81. After deducting a sum of Rs. 9269.81. he was getting Rs. 4, 428 however, on a scan of the deductions we find, most of the deductions were reimbursement of the loan that the victim availed. Only admissible deduction which we find relevant for the purpose of assessment of his net salary, would be income tax and professional tax to the extent of Rs.1200 and Rs.110 respectively. If we deduct the said amount of Rs.1310 the net salary would be for our present purpose, Rs.12, 387.81. AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL:
(3.) THE Tribunal accepted the assertion of the accident as well as the gross salary. While calculating compensation, the Tribunal considered the actual net pay that the victim got from Life Insurance Corporation being Rs. 4,428 and not Rs.12, 387.81.;