Proper assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires consideration of relevant evidence, application of Supreme Court observations on future prospects and general damages, and the use of the correct multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated April 10, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Bankura, in M.A.C. case No. 35/44 of 2011/2009.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present appellant being the claimant preferred an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation from the Insurance Company on the ground that their predecessor 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 was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement.

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the present respondent no.1 to pay the compensation.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the present application has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that award passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased erroneously as a notional income of Rs.24,000/-per annum. The deceased was a driver of Bolero car who sustained severe injuries in an accident in the year 2008. The driver of the vehicle used to earn more than Rs.5,000/- at the relevant point of time. The claim application was filed stating the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/-. Evidence was adduced by the widow of the deceased stating that the income of her husband was Rs.4,500/-per month. Learned Tribunal has erroneously assessed the compensation by fixing annual income of the deceased to be Rs.24,000/-.

6. He further argued that the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal. In this case, 17 which is erroneous according to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma. The applicable multiplier would be 18 considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years.

7. The claimants are also entitled to get the future prospect as well as the general damages according to the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Pranay Shetty. He prayed for just and proper compensation.

8. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that no documents of income has been produced before the learned Tribunal. The owner or the multiplier of the deceased also did not depose to support the claim of the claimants. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in assessing income of the deceased. However, he admitted that the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is erroneous.

9. Heard the learned advocate and perused the materials on record, the fact of this case is very peculiar. On 5.11.2008 when the deceased was travelling Bolero car along with some passengers bearing no. WB 38V/9261 and when they reached at Kharkata Junble(Forest), they found some wooden logs were placed upon the road. They stopped their car, at the time 7/8 docoits being armed with stick, daggers, axe etc. attacked them and snatched their belongings. At the time, the offending truck bearing no. WB 37B/2006 which was running in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed the boloro car from behind in a high force. By such, driver of the boloro car i.e. present deceased with other passengers sustained severe injuries and on the way to the hospital the deceased died.

10. The learned Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased notionally. It is true that the deceased was a driver of the Boloro car. The learned Tribunal must have followed the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2001 ACJ 428, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to assess the compensation in pursuance of any relevant evidence. The statement of widow can be believed. The Hon’ble Supreme