The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation for the death of a minor in a motor accident, considering the victim's potential income, the applicability of the Second Schedule of the Act, and the liability of the drivers and insurers of the vehicles involved.

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.

4. The tribunal upheld the challenge and recorded a finding that it was “straightway not inclined to believe the oral testimonies” of the claimants since “the same is not supported by any documentary proof”. However, the tribunal in assessing compensation applied the law laid down in Laxmi Devi v. Mohammed Tabbar, reported in 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), and held that the income of the victim was Rs. 3,000/- per month.

5. For the purpose of selecting the multiplier, the tribunal considered the age of the claimant no.1. She was 27 (twenty-seven) years old on or about the date of the accident. Looking into the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the tribunal applied 18 (eighteen) as the multiplier. To award interest, the tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kohinur Begam v. New India assurance Company Limited, reported in 2008 (2) TAC 711.

6. The challenge in this appeal under section 173 of the Act, at the instance of the insurance company (which had insured the heavy motor vehicle) is to such award of the tribunal. An application has been filed in the appeal, praying for stay of operation of the award. The claimants upon service of notice have entered appearance and filed a cross-objection.

7. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate representing the appellant, contended that the decision in Laxmi Devi (supra) could not have been applied by the tribunal for working out the notional income of the victim, since she died a minor.