JUDGMENT :

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) :

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 28th January, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, 2nd Court, Hooghly, in M.A.C. Case No. 34 of 2012 granting compensation of Rs.2,73,500/-in favour of the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 10th October, 2011 at about 5:30 hours while the victim was travelling by the vehicle bearing registration No. WB-16N/3000 (scorpio) through Delhi Road from Kolkata to Bandel and when the said vehicle reached near 100 Begha under Bhadreswar P.S. the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-25D/5438 (lorry) driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle in which the victim was travelling. Due to the said accident, the victim along with one other sustained grievous injury and they were taken to Serampore Walsh Hospital where the victim succumbed to his injuries and died. On account of sudden demise of the victim, the claimants being the widow, son, mother and married daughter filed application for compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/-together with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The claimants in order to establish their case, examined three witnesses and produced documents which have been marked as Exhibit 1 to 11 respectively.

4. The respondent nos. 1 & 2-insurance companies did not adduce evidence.

5. Owners of both the vehicles namely, respondent no. 3 and 4 did not contest the claim application and the case was disposed of ex parte against them. For the aforesaid reasons, by order dated 12th August, 2022, the service of notice of appeal upon the said respondents was dispensed with.

6. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2,73,500/-in favour of the claimants. Although the claim application was allowed on contest against both the insurance companies namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent no. 1) and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (respondent no. 2), yet the learned tribunal directed only respondent no.1 to satisfy the award.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

8. During the pendency of the instant appeal, appellant no. 3, Smt. Abha Rani Dutta died on 19th March, 2017 and her name has been deleted from the memorandum of appeal by order of this Court dated 12th August, 2022.

9. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants, submitted that learned Tribunal erred in considering the notional income of Rs. 36,000/-per annum as income of the deceased and failed to take into account the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-2011 filed prior to the death of the deceased and the subsequent income tax return for the assessment year 2011-2012 filed after the death of the deceased by the legal heirs who are entitled to furnish the return under Section 159 of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that the last income tax return for the assessment year 2011-2012 filed by the legal heirs disclosing income tax of the deceased of Rs. 1,78,810/-less tax component of Rs. 2,089/-is the actual income of the deceased-victim which should be taken into consideration for computation of compensation amount. To buttress his aforesaid contentions, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Kalpanaraj & Ors. versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 and another decision passed in Malarvizhi & Ors. versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228. He further submitted that the claimants are also entitled to an amount equivalent to 10% of annual income of the deceased towards future prospect and general