1. Deduction from salary for computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can only be made in respect of professional tax. 2. Claimants are entitled to future prospects and general damages in motor accident compensation cases. 3. Claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. Both the appeals arose out of judgment and award passed by Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd (special ) Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with Motor Accident Claim Case No. 365 of 2021 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are being taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Claim petition under Section 166 was filed by the wife, son & minor daughter of the deceased Ajit Kumar Mandal who died in a motor accident on 21.06.2021 at about 10.30 a.m. while he was proceeding towards Sannyasikata High School from his resident by a scooty bearing no. WB-72-R-2177 as a pillion rider. Near Fatapukur under PS Rajganj one Maruti Dzire bearing no. WB-72-R-1064 coming with high speed dashed the back side of the said scooty. Consequently, said Ajit Kumar Mandal sustained severe injury on his person and succumbed to his injuries.

3. According to claim petition, Ajit Kumar Mandal was an Assistance Teacher of Sannyasikata High School and would earn Rs. 62,400/- per month as salary. Claimants were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Claimants filed the claim petition with the prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,06,480/- from the Insurer of the Maruti Dzire bearing reg. no. WB 72R 1064.

4. Owner of the Maruti Dzire bearing Reg. No. WB 72R 1064 filed written objection denying all averments of the claim petition, contending, inter alia, that the case was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited.

5. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the Maruti Dzire by filing written objection denying all material averments of the claim petition, contending, inter alia, that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. In course of trial, three witnesses were examined namely Aloka Mondal, wife of the deceased, as PW1, Amit Roy, eye witness to the accident, as PW2 & one Mritunjoy Das, teacher attached to Sannyasikata High School as PW3. In course of their evidence a good number of documents were admitted in evidence including copy of FIR, Written complaint, General Diary, Seizure list, charge sheet, PM Report, Insurance Policy, driving license, salary certificate as exhibit 1 to 9.

7. Ld. Tribunal relying on the evidence of witnesses together with the admitted documents returned his findings in favour of accidental death of Ajit Kumar Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of a vehicle, Maruti Dzire, bearing no. WB-72-R-1064. Accordingly, Ld. Tribunal assessed the compensation in terms of age of the deceased and salary of the deceased after deducting house rent allowance, medical allowance, income tax and professional tax totaling Rs. 7,180/- out of gross salary of Rs. 62,600/-. Thereby, Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation in terms of net salary of Rs. 55,420/-.

In re: FMAT (MV) 29 of 2022

8. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of United India Assurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Ld. Tribunal on the ground of implantation of the vehicle collusively after the accident alleged in the case.

9. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Pasupati Nath, appearing on behalf of the appellants/United Insurance Company Limited has referred to two documents i.e. written complaint (exhibit 2) and GD entry (exhibit 3) and contended that on the alleged date of accident brother of the deceased lodged complaint against unknown vehicle on 21.06.2021 but again on 1.07.2021 said Ranjit Kumar Mandal (brother of the deceased) lodged a general diary before the Inspector-in-charge of Rajganj Police Station disclosing the number of the offending vehicle. Thereby, Mr. Nath tried to draw a conclusion that the vehicle bearing Reg. No. WB-72-R-1064 was implanted collusively.

10. Ld. Advocate Mr. Gobinda Saha, appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents has argued that subsequent disclosure of name of the vehicle cannot lead to any conclusive presumption that