- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2002 which was an award of compensation granted by the learned Judge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Motor accident claim, being M.A.C.Casc No. 112 of 2000, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the following grievances: - (i) That though there was oral evidence-on-record that the deceased was a truck driver, driving licence of which was exhibited without any objection, and thereby used to earn Rs.100/- per day as per the deposition of the wife of the deceased, P.W.1 which have been remained undisputed in the cross-examination as made by the Insurance Company who was entitled to take all other defences in view of the leave granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence-on-record and thereby came to an erroneous finding that the income should be considered on the basis of notional income applicable in respect of non-earning persons in terms of Section 163A read with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) That, the payment of interest on compensation amount in terms of Section 171 of the said Act was not at all considered by the learned Tribunal below though statutorily there was an obligation on the part of the learned Tribunal to do so. (iii) The amount for funeral expenses and the loss of estate were not granted in terms of Clause 3 of the Second Schedule in Section 163A of the said Act.
(3.) On screening the evidence-on-record it appears that, so far as the grievance No.(i) as raised, that the P.W.1, the widow, though categorically deposed that her husband being a truck driver used to earn Rs. 100/- per day and the driving licence was also exhibited, but in the cross-examination there is no suggestion that the victim was not a truck driver and his avocation was not driving of vehicle. The only suggestion made that the income was not Rs.100/-per day as deposed which was undisputed even in the cross-examination by the answer of the witness concerned. Hence it appears that the oral evidence-on-record remained unchallenged, undisturbed even by the cross-examination which has satisfied the consideration of evidentiary value about the income, So far as adjudication of the application praying compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, namely, social welfare legislation, it is trite to say that this Act is a beneficial legislation and accordingly the rigours of criminal trial and of civil procedure are not applicable with reference to adjudication of the compensation application. Learned Tribunal accordingly commited gross mistake and that too a gross mistake by not considering the spirit of framing and Constitution of the Motor Vehicles Act vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of the grant of compensation in its proper perspective and angle and thereby wrong finding was reached. This Court is of the view that there are sufficient evidence-on-record for satisfaction of the income issue in disposing of the application praying compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view, the findings of the learned Tribunal below being completely erroneous and the fixation of the notional income of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- per month is set aside and quashed. This Court determining the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month on accepting the oral evidence of P.W.1 and calculation of compensation would be dependent upon such figure.;