JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J :

1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 6 December 2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Hooghly in M.A.C Case no. 74 of 2010 granting compensation of Rs. 21,64,500/-together with interest in favour of the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 31 August 2009 at about 11:30 AM while the victim riding on the bicycle of his friend Sanjib Hazra as pillion rider was proceeding to UIT College along the G.T Road and when they reached Bhangakuthi near Maharashtra Bank the offending vehicle bearing registration no. WB-41D/5692 (bus) in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bicycle as a result of which the victim fell down on the road and was run over by the said bus and he died on the spot. The victim at the time of accident was a student pursuing BE course at UIT, Burdwan. On account of sudden demise of the deceased-victim the claimants being the parents filed application for compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-along with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The respondent no.3-owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim application before the learned tribunal and the case was disposed of exparte against him. The notice of appeal has been duly served upon respondent no.3-owner of the offending vehicle, however he remained unrepresented.

4. The claimants in order to establish their case examined two witnesses including claimant no.1, father of the deceased victim and proved number of documents which has been marked Exhibit 1 to 8 respectively.

5. Appellant-insurance company did not adduce any evidence.

6. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced on behalf of the claimants, the learned tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 21,64,500/-in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the amount under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

8. Mr Rajesh Singh, learned advocate for appellant-insurance company submitted that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the concerned accident was not proved beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that in the First Information Report the registration number of the offending vehicle has been mentioned as “5692” without having any prefix alphabet or any other numeral. The offending vehicle WB-41D/5692 has been seized after 25 days of accident on the basis of the FIR which only mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle as “5692”. Hence involvement of the offending vehicle is shrouded with suspicion.

He further submitted that the learned tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that on the relevant date of accident the deceased-victim was proceeding as a pillion rider on a bicycle on the G.T road which contributed to the accident and therefore the percentage of contributory negligence of the deceased-victim needs to be deducted from the total compensation assessed.

Furthermore, it is submitted that as per the claim application as well as the evidence of claimant no.1 (PW1), father of the deceased, the income of the deceased has been stated to be Rs. 2000/-per month, however, the learned tribunal erred in assuming the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,80,000/-per annum. In the absence of any documentary evidence produced to prove such income the notional income of Rs. 15,000/-per annum in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act should be considered for assessing the quantum of compensation. As per the evidence of the father of the deceased (PW1) at the time of accident the deceased was a student of Engineering course in Burdwan Univ