The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the assessment of the victim's income, grant of future prospect, parental consortium, and the rate of interest on the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 30th November, 2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 4th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in M.A.C. Case No. 1 of 2002 granting compensation of Rs.21,52,140/- together with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 10th August, 2001 at around 8:30 P.M. while the victim was travelling in a Hyundai Car bearing registration no. KA-OS-C/2107, at that time, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. TN-09D-0561 (tanker lorry), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said car from behind at Mogili Ghat on Palamaner-Bangarupalem Road, Chitoor, Andhra Pradesh. As a result of which, the said car collided with another lorry coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident, the victim and two other occupants died on the spot and one of the occupants sustained injuries. On account of sudden demise of the victim, the claimants being the widow, son and daughter of the deceased filed application for compensation of Rs. 18,84,500/- together with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The claimants in order to establish their case examined two witnesses and produced documents which have marked as Exhibits 1 to 11 respectively.

4. The appellant-insurance company did not adduce any evidence.

5. It is found that the respondent no.4, owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case and the same was disposed of ex parte against him. In the aforesaid backdrop, service of notice of appeal upon the said respondent stands dispensed with.

6. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.21,52,140/- together with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

8. Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,67,896/- per annum on the basis of income tax assessment order for the Assessment Year 2000-01 which has not been proved in accordance with law. The income tax assessment order (Exhibit 11) has been produced by P.W.1, son of the deceased at the time of his examination and such document issued by the income tax authority has been marked as exhibit after objection raised on behalf of the insurance company. Since during examination of P.W.1 such document has been objected to, hence it became imperative upon the claimants to prove such document in accordance with law. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof which is required to be done in accordance with law. Thus, even if the document has been marked as exhibit with objection, in the absence of proof, such document loses its credibility and is of no probative value. To buttress his contention, he relied on the following decisions:

i. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another versus Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491,

ii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (CR)-I versus Sri Subhasis Manna & Anr., FMA 1544 of 2018 (Decision of High Court at Calcutta),

iii. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Santa Dey and Others, 2018 (3) T.A.C. 473 (Cal.).

Therefore, since the income tax assessment order has not been proved in accordance with law, the income reflected in the said assessment order should not have been considered by the learned Tribunal.

Moreover, he submitted that the deceased, at the time of accident, was on a fixed salary and, therefore