- (1.) THE claimants are the appellants in this appeal. They are aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur dated August 8, 2006 in MAC Case No.253 of 2002. The claimants filed the application under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on March 30, 2002. They filed it as the parents of one Susanta Das. Their case was as follows. In an accident caused by an oil tanker No.WB 33 -2905 driven rashly and negligently their son Susanta was killed on March 11, 2002. Susanta was 18 and earning Rs. 3000 per month. There was in force a policy issued by the insurance company in relation to the use of the vehicle. Hence the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company became liable to pay them Rs. 2 lakh compensation with future prospects addition, interest, and costs. The insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement. In proof of the case the first claimant, the victim's father, testified as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident testified as PW2. The claimants exhibited copies of FIR, charge -sheet, seizure list, post -mortem report, and the insurance policy. The insurance company did not give any evidence.
(2.) THE claims tribunal held as follows. Evidence proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and that the victim killed in it was 18. No witness was examined to prove that the victim had worked as mason in his house. Hence it was not proved that he was a mason. Rs. 15,000 notional income provision of the Second Schedule to the Act should be applied with one -third deduction towards the victim's personal and living expenses.
(3.) MR . Roy appearing for the claimants has submitted as follows. The claims tribunal erred in law by rejecting the evidence that as mason the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month, by not adding 50% of the determined income on account of future prospects, and by ordering that the insurance company would pay 6% p.a. interest only if it failed to pay the amount of compensation within the time mentioned in the award. Mr. Singh appearing for the insurance company has submitted as follows. The case that as mason the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month was not proved. No evidence of future prospects was given. The claims tribunal, however, ought to have granted interest at appropriate rate from the date the application was filed till the date of payment. Since the victim was a bachelor, the claims tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of his determined income. On future prospects issue, Mr. Roy has relied on Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors.,2013 AllCriC 841) and in support of his argument that the insurance company not filing any cross -objection is not entitled to raise the question of deduction from the victim's determined income towards his personal and living expenses, he has relied on Ranjana Prakash and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2011 ACJ 2418. PW1 testified, "at the time of accident the age of my son was only 18 years and he was mason by profession. He used to earn Rs.3,000 per month and would give me." In cross -examination he said, "I have not submitted any paper to show that my son was a mason. I have no income to maintain my family. Voluntarily says, my family was maintained by the income of my son. I did not see the accident. Not a fact that deceased had no income. Not a fact that my family is being maintained by my income.";