The court emphasized the reliability of oral evidence and the application of Supreme Court principles in determining just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The award dated January 4, 2014 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court (Spl.), Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 06/2012, arising out of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is under challenge in this appeal under section 173 thereof at the instance of the claimants (hereafter the appellants).

2. The appellants are the widow and two minor children of deceased Achinta Ghosh.

He died in a road accident on April 29, 2011 because of rash and negligent driving by a truck bearing registration no. WB 59A/4548 (hereafter the offending vehicle), owned and insured by the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively before the tribunal. The appellants had claimed that the victim had an earning of Rs. 6000/- per month, working as a conductor of a maxi bus bearing registration no. WB 71/3119. However, the evidence adduced in this behalf was disbelieved by the tribunal, which proceeded to determine loss of dependency bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 (Laxmi Devi v. Mohd. Tabbar) and selecting 15 as the multiplier. Loss of dependency was worked out at Rs. 3,60,000/-. In addition thereto, the tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant no.1 for loss of consortium, totalling to Rs. 3,69,500/-. The amounts due and payable by the opposite party no.2 to the respective claimants were apportioned in the manner indicated in the award without any interest within 30 days, failing which the compensation awarded was directed to carry interest @ 6% p.a. till realisation in full.

3. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the appellants assailed the award by raising the following points:

(i) The tribunal erred in rejecting the evidence led by the appellants in regard to the earning of the victim;

(ii) The tribunal did not determine compensation payable to the appellants in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 [Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others], resulting in paltry amounts being awarded as compensation for loss of consortium and on account of funeral expenses;

(iii) The tribunal also committed error in not awarding any amount towards loss of care and guidance of the victim to the minor children; and

(iv) The tribunal erred in not exercising discretion by awarding interest to the appellants from the date of lodging of the claim application.

4. In support of his contention that the oral evidence of the appellant no.1 (deposing as PW-1) as well as the representative of the victim’s employer (deposing as PW-3) were wrongly discarded by the tribunal and further that their oral evidence even in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the income of the victim ought to have been relied upon, Mr. Chattopadhyay referred to two decisions of coordinate benches of this Court reported in 2003 (3) ACC 137 [Smt. Bilasini Mondal v. National Insurance Company Limited and anr.] and 2005 (2) Cal LJ 136 [Gopal Chandra Dey v. Smt. Minakshi Sanyal & anr.]. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Chattopadhayay on a decision of recent origin of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 2 SCC 771 [Kala Devi and others v. Bhagwan Das Chauhan and others] where the decision in Rajesh (supra) was followed and enhanced compensation was awarded.

5. Mr. Chattopadhyay, accordingly, prayed that the award of the tribunal be modified and compensation be determined in accordance with the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the decisions in Rajesh (supra) and Kala Devi (supra).

6. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the insurer (respondent no.1 in the appeal) contended as follows:

(i) The award having been satisfied by the insurer, the appeal should not be entertained;

(ii) The award of the tribunal under challenge does not suffer from any infir