Proper evidence and documentation are crucial for assessing compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15th Day of March, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Court Burdwan in MAC Case No. 57/156 of 2009.

2. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred an application before the learned tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for getting compensation.

3. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company. After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidences the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,49,500/-in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.

4. One cross appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the said award only with the prayer of future prospects and general damages by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Pranay Sethi. The cross appeal was objected by the Insurance Company on the ground that it was preferred after a long delay of filing of the instant appeal so the COT cannot be entertained. CAN 1 of 2023 is filed for condonation of delay. Heard the learned advocate also perused the body of the CAN 1 of 2023. Considering the submissions of the parties the delay in preferring the cross appeal is condoned.

5. The appeal alongwith the cross appeal be taken for hearing together.

6. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee submits that the appeal has only preferred in respect of the quantum of the award wherein the learned tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation by fixing the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 10,000/-. There are no sufficient document to adopt such income of the deceased. No document of income has been proved by the claimant before the learned tribunal still then the learned tribunal has assessed the income erroneously and without any basis thus the award passed by the learned tribunal need be set aside.

7. In support of his contentions he cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “while there is no convincing evidence of agricultural income so it is not proper to assess the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the submission made by the claimants”.

8. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that the learned tribunal has correctly assessed the entire facts and circumstances of this case and came to a finding that the deceased had the income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/-. He further argued that the claimants have preferred the claim application stating the income of the deceased to be Rs. 40,000/-per month. The deceased was a business man has a paddy business, fish business and tractor business. He also had a fish business by taking lease of the fish ponds and by selling the fishes. The sufficient document has been produced before the learned tribunal to substantiate the claim. The learned tribunal has considered the entire facts and the documents produced by the claimants and came to a finding that the income of t he deceased should be Rs.10,000/-per month. In this score, the income of the deceased cannot be less than Rs.10,000/-. So, he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

9. By virtue of the cross appeal he submits that the claimants are entitled to get the future prospects as well as the general damages as per Law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi.

10. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the claimants submits several judgments:

i) Muhammed V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in (2003) ACJ 894.

ii) Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. reported in (1999) air (sc) 3571.

iii) Shivakumar M. Versus The Managing Director, BMTC reported in IV (2017) ACC 51 (S.C.).

iv) Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Versus Mohinder Yadav & Ors. reported in AIR (