- (1.) Mr. Bhowmick, appearing for the Insurance Company has raised an interesting question of law; otherwise the appeal has its usual grievance of the appellants, the victim's income was not properly considered. The facts would depict, victim a leaseholder, carrying on business of pisciculture, died in the accident. The claimants claimed, he was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. The accident took place in 2007.
(2.) Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants would contend, the Tribunal should have accepted the assertion, irrespective of evidence that was led, following the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, 2008 ACJ 1488.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, would contend, the accident occurred in 2007, whereas the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi rendered in 2008 would have a prospective effect, hence such decision would have no role to play. To support his contention, he would rely upon the Apex Court Decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727.;