The assessment of contributory negligence, medical expenses, and income, as well as the interpretation of evidence and legal principles established by higher courts, are crucial in determining compensation claims under the M.V. Act.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30th June, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Purba Bardhaman, in MAC Case No. 54/2011/189/2011.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the present appellants being the claimants have preferred the claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the learned tribunal for getting compensation on the ground that their predecessor was died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company. The claim case was contested by the insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidences, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,68,550/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filling of the claim application in favour of the claimants.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned tribunal, the present appellants/claimants have preferred this instant appeal for enhancement of the award.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the award passed by the learned tribunal is palpable illegal in the eye of law. He argued that the learned tribunal has misconstrued and miss-appreciated the facts and circumstances of this case and came to an erroneous finding. The fact of the case goes to show that on 23.12.2010 at about 02.45 P.M. the victim fell down from the front gate of a bus bearing No.WB-41-3675 which was proceeding rash and negligently on Guskara Road; the victim sustained severe injuries on his person which resulted his death. He further argued that apart from the police papers there are Seven (7) witnesses on behalf of the claimant to prove the claim case but the learned tribunal has not considered the entire evidences on record. The learned tribunal has erroneously held that the deceased was responsible for the accident and there are contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver of the bus. The portion of negligence on behalf of the deceased was assessed by the learned tribunal as 70%. More than 3 (three) persons of different hospitals appeared before the learned tribunal to prove the medical expenses but the learned tribunal has not considered the evidence. Thus only Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded towards the medical expenses including non pecuniary heads. Learned tribunal also erroneous for not considered the IT return submitted by the authorised persons of concerned Income Tax Department who produced the ITR of the deceased showing the annual income. On the above score, he argued that the learned tribunal has miss-appreciated the evidences and came to an erroneous finding.

5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company submits that the observation of the learned tribunal is on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case and on the basis of the materials on record. The learned tribunal has categorically considered the evidences in respect of contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased. Thus, the award passed by the learned tribunal is correct. No reasonable or believable document was produced before the learned tribunal regarding the medical treatment of the deceased. Thus, the learned tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of the person appearing before him as a representative of the concerned nursing home. He further argued that the learned tribunal has also considered the evidence of Income Tax Department and is of view that it’s a self-same ITR. So, it cannot be considered.

6. Heard the learned advocates perused the materials on record.

7. Considering the contributory negligence of this case it appears to me that the learned tribunal has considered the FIR wherein it has been written that at the time of boarding the bus the deceased fell down from the bus. The PW-6 was cited as an eye witness of the