The court emphasized the importance of considering Income Tax Returns and the deceased's actual income in determining the compensation amount in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - Judgement and award passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Barasat, 2nd Court, North 24 Pargans, in connection with MAC No. 75 of 2010 has been assailed by this appeal on the ground of insufficient award ignoring settled parameters for calculation of the award. It is further alleged that Ld. Judge ignored the series of Income Tax Returns showing monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- and wrongly assessed the income of the victim as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. That apart, Ld. Judge failed to add mandatory interest along with the award.

2. The claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, was filed with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,90,000/- on account of accidental death of one Pramit Kumar Biswas, aged about 42 years on 05.09.2009 at about 7.45 a.m. by the involvement of one vehicle (Bus) bearing no. WB- 25/2232. According to claim petition, on the alleged date and time, the said bus while moving with high speed and in negligent manner towards Kestopur side through VIP Road, dashed the Motor Cycle of the victim from behind. Victim sustained severe injuries and taken to R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital where he was declared brought dead. After the accident a Police case was started being Lake Town Police Station Case No. 149 of 2009, dated 05.09.2009 under Section 279/304/427 of Indian Penal Code and charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. In course of proceeding claimant being widow of the victim examined herself as PW-1. She narrated the incident of accident when her husband Pramit Kumar Biswas died. She further stated that her husband used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month from private tuition and she submitted a good number of documents and those were admitted in evidence. In cross examination she has stated about monthly income of her husband.

3. PW-2, (Sushil Saha) claiming himself as eye-witness to the accident has testified before the Tribunal about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Bus) bearing no. WB-25/2232. In cross-examination he denied suggestions put to him.

4. PW-3, (Gautam Biswas) claimed himself as Senior Tax Assistant and posted at Ward 49 (4), CIT, 17, Maniktala Centre, Uttrapan Complex, Kolkata-54. He submitted letter of authorization (exhibit-11). He brought copies Income Tax Return in respect of victim Pramit Kumar Biswas for three (3) assessment years prior to his death. All those copy of the Income Tax Return were filed and marked as exhibit 13 series.

5. After considering all the aforesaid evidences though Ld. Tribunal relied on the evidence with regard to accident alleged in this case but did not accept the monthly income of victim Pramit Kumar Biswas on the reason that claimant could not produce any document in support of payment of tax and also ignored the Income Tax Returns (exhibit 13 series) on the plea of 'Self styled and self creations'. Ld. Tribunal assuming the income of the victim as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, calculated the award to the tune of Rs. 1,59,500/-.

Argument Advanced:-

6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal appearing on behalf of the claimant/appellant has submitted that Ld. Tribunal did not rely on the Income Tax Return on an unreasonable ground that victim did not pay Income Tax. Mr. Mondal has further contended that Ld. Tribunal even did not care to add the future prospect, interest and general damages as per guideline of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Mondal relied on the following cases:-

Smt. Sangita Arya and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and others, 2020 SAR (Civ) 905

Malarvizhi and other Vs. United. India Insurance company Limited and another, 2020 (1) T.A.C 328 (SC).

Rasmita Biswal and others Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2022 SAR (Civ) 238.

Amrit Bhanu Shali and other Vs. Nati