Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ award dated 8.5.2012, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamtara, in MACT Case No. 1 of 2011.
(2.) Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of award on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that no document on chit of paper was adduced to support the plea that the deceased had an income of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the grocery shop. It is urged that the learned Tribunal was erred in not appreciating the fact that in the pleadings, the total income of the deceased has been mentioned to be Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the said grocery shop as well as from the agricultural land. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any evidence on record and the investigator of the Insurance Company had conducted an investigation and as per the report, the sons of the deceased have been running the grocery shop and there is no loss of income as the grocery shop is being run by the sons. On the said grounds, it is contended that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and not supported by any material evidence.
(3.) Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, counsel on behalf of the respondents/claimants has submitted that the witnesses have stated that the deceased Suku Gorai was running a grocery shop in the village from which he had an income of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. That the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of the statement of the witnesses. That the impugned order does not merit any interference.;