The future prospect for a deceased with a permanent job and aged between 40 and 50 years should be 30% of the established income, as per the interpretation from National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 13th July, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in MAC Case No.490 of 2021. The claimants/respondent nos.1 and 2 preferred an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting compensation as their predecessor died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company.

2. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and after receiving evidences has awarded a sum of Rs.29,91,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. The claimants also preferred one cross appeal against the impugned award. Both the appeal and the cross appeal are taken up for uniformity of the judgment.

4. Mr. Deb Narayan Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be set aside. He argued that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased erroneously. The learned Tribunal did not consider the evidences on record and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.20,500/- per month. He argued that the deceased was not a permanent employee and he was only paid by the company on the basis of daily wages. So, his monthly income cannot be calculated to be Rs.20,500/-.

5. He further argued that the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the fact that the FIR of the instant case was lodged after 4 months of the alleged accident. He argued that the alleged accident happened on 14th March, 2021, but the FIR was lodged on 5th July, 2021. He submits that there are no explanation in such inordinate delay in lodging FIR. He argued that the present offending vehicle must have implanted due to such delay in lodging the FIR.

6. Mr. Deb Narayan Ray, learned advocate further argued that the driver of the offending vehicle had no authority or proper driving licence to drive the vehicle. He submits that the owner of the offending vehicle have never allowed the driver of the offending vehicle to drive the said motor cycle. In that score, the owner has violated the terms of the policy. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

7. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2/claimants submits that the claimants have produced one employer before the learned Tribunal as P.W.3. During his evidence, he has produced all the registers of wages wherefrom it would appear that the deceased Debkumar Maji was a permanent employee and used to earn more than Rs.21,000/- per month. He further argued that the deduction and perks accepted by the deceased during his employment can be taken to be the monthly income of the deceased according to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors. reported in 2008 0 AIR (SC) 845. He further argued that the monthly deduction in the payment register appears that they are regularly deducted from the gross income of the deceased; amongst them the deduction towards the provident fund need not to be deducted.

8. Mr. Roy, further argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The accident happened during the Covid pandemic. After such accident, the widow was engaged during last rituals of her husband and he lodged a written complaint to the concerned police station as well as to the SP, Purba Medinipur just after completion of the ritual; but these applications were not taken care of, for which she preferred an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medin