The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles established in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Md. Tabbar and anr., 2008 SAR(Civ) 445 to determine the notional income of the deceased and calculate the compensation amount in motor accident claim cases.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated March 4,2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court Tamluk-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim case No. 43 of 2013.

2. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed inter alia stating that on October 23, 2012 at about 10:30 A.M. when one Bishnupada Adhikary (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") was standing on the extreme left side mud portion of Chaittanyapur Brojolal Chawk Road at Village Barbasudebpur (Gosher More), the offending vehicle which was coming from Chaitannyapur side and proceeded towards Brojolal Chawk with extreme high speed and dashed and ran over the victim with great force. The victim was taken to Tamluk District Hospital but died subsequently. It was stated in the claim petition that the victim was a quack Doctor and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/-. It was further alleged that the victim was aged about 28 years at the time of his death. The claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition and contested the claim case by filing the written objection denying the material allegations contained therein. It was specifically contended that the claim made by the claimants was excessive, abnormal and without any legal and equitable basis.

4. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 1 but did not contest the said proceedings.

5. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. After applying 18 as the multiplier, and allowing a deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,40,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to further sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for consortium. Thus, the Tribunal held that the total amount of compensation for the claimants stand at Rs. 14, 80,000/-.

6. In support of the appeal Mr. Rajesh Singh learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. He further submitted that the claimants produced a certificate issued by the Pradhan of Deulpota Gram Panchayat who certified that the monthly income of Bishnupada Adhikary was Rs. 10,000/- and the said certificate was marked as "X" for identification as the claimants could not prove the same in accordance with law. The claimants did not produce any other document to prove the income of the deceased and as such the finding of the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- is without any basis. Mr. Singh thus submitted that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is liable to set aside on that ground. Mr. Singh further submitted that since there was no material to establish the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported at (Laxmi Devi and Ors. -vs- Md. Tabbar and anr.,2008 SAR(Civ) 445).

7. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents submitted that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing the award. He further submits that the deceased was a good skilled quack doctor in Allopathy System of medicine. His training was completed under Dr. M.L. Bishayi and the said Doctor adduced evidence as witness No. 3 for the claimants. According to him, the deceased had an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of accident which has been duly proved in evidence.

8. The accident took place on October 23, 2012 at about 10:30 A.M. The eyewitness adduced evidence as the second witness for the claimants and narrated exhaustively the accident which resulted in the death of the vi