In the absence of documentary evidence of the victim's actual income, the court can consider the notional income of the deceased as per relevant legal precedents to determine just compensation.

1. This first appeal is directed against the award passed by the Tribunal, Balurghat on 24th June, 2008 in MACC No. 140 of 2006 at the instance of the claimant/appellant. The widow of the victim in a motor accident is the claimant/appellant No.1. The other two claimants/appellants are the minor children of the appellant No.1.

2. Death of the husband of the appellant no.1 in the motor accident is proved. The age of the victim at the time when such accident occurred was 32 years. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the victim at the time of his death. The only dispute is with regard to quantification of the damages to be awarded in the proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the appellants could not prove the actual income of the victim at the time of his death by producing any material evidence, the learned Tribunal calculated the compensation to be awarded by accepting the notional income of the deceased at the time of his death as Rs.2,000/- per month.

3. Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. Reported in 2008 ACJ 1488, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation to be awarded to the appellants by accepting the notional income of the said deceased at the time of his death as Rs.100/- per day.

4. We find substance in such contention of Mr. Banik as we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that in a case where the claimant is unable to prove his actual income by documentary evidence, the Court can hold the notional income of the said deceased as Rs.100/- per day as according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court even an unskilled labourer could have earned Rs.100/- per day in the year 2004.

5. In the present case, the accident occurred in 2006. As such, we can safely hold that the compensation should have been calculated by accepting the notional income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day. It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision also reduced the multiplier by two units after considering the fact that the multiplicant was enhanced.

6. However, in the present case considering the number of members of the family of the deceased which includes his parents, widow and two minor children, we do not propose to reduce the multiplier.

7. Thus, we hold that the annual income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 36,000/- (3000 X 12). If 1/3rd is deducted from the annual income of the said deceased on account of his personal expenses, then the total loss of the dependent will be Rs. 24,000/- i.e Rs.36,000-12,000/-= Rs. 24,000/- .

8. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier will be 17. Thus, if the said amount of Rs.24,000/- is multiplied by 17, then the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 4,08,000/-. In addition thereto the appellants are also entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 9,500/- on account of statutory non-pecuniary damages. Thus, in our view, the just compensation will be Rs. 4,08,000/- + Rs. 9,500/- = Rs. 4,17,500/-.

9. Though it was argued before us by Mr. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1/Insurance Company that the occupier of the vehicle who died in the said accident is not entitled to get any compensation but ultimately after considering the policy which is a comprehensive one, we are of the view that such contention of Mr. Paul cannot be accepted.

10. As such, we dispose of the appeal by holding that the just compensation will be Rs. 4,17,500/-.

11. We are informed by Mr. Paul that the amount which was awarded by the learned Tribunal, has already been deposited by his client in the Executing Court and the said deposited money has already been withdrawn by the appellants.

12. We thus, direct the Insura