Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) As a result of a road accident on June 8, 2012 involving the use of two motor vehicles, ~ one light and the other a heavy vehicle ~ nine passengers of the lighter vehicle sustained severe injuries and later on passed away. The deceased included a minor girl aged about 10 (ten) years (hereafter the victim). The death of the victim led her parents (hereafter the claimants) to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- + interest. It was registered as M.A.C. Case No.183 of 2012.
(2.) The tribunal, upon considering oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application by its judgment and award dated January 6, 2016. The victim was held to have died as a consequence of the accident. It was also held that rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles resulted in the accident that claimed the victim's life. In the absence of any proof that the light motor vehicle was insured, its owner (the opposite party no. 2) and the insurer of the heavy motor vehicle (the opposite party no. 3) were held liable to bear compensation in equal shares together with interest to the victim's mother (the claimant no.1). Compensation was assessed in a sum of Rs. 3,51,500/-, which was to carry interest @ 9% per annum from September 21, 2012 (the date of presentation of the claim application) till payment were made to the claimant no.1.
(3.) It was pleaded in the claim application that the victim was a girl of good health and had active habits. She had a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- per month from her occupation and she used to contribute such income towards the daily expenses of her family. Due to the pathetic premature death of the victim, the claimants had suffered great financial loss apart from mental pain and agony which they were likely to suffer throughout their lives. The claimants, however, had not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the victim. This triggered a challenge to such version by the insurance company, i.e., the insurer of the heavy motor vehicle. It was contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced by the claimants to prove their version of the victim having a regular monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, which she allegedly contributed to the claimants for running the family, the same should not be believed.;