Claimants are required to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In a case u/s 166 of MV Act, claimants are entitled to future prospects and general damages as per the Pranay Sethi case.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed by Learned Judge, Moor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track 2nd Court, Tamluk in MAC Case No. 165 of 2014.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the claimants preferred an application before the Learned Tribunal for getting compensation 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 ensured under the policy of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company contested the claim case by filing written statement. After hearing the parties the Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 63,88,00/-together with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the Insurance Company preferred another appeal against the said award. Both the appeals are taken up together for uniformity of the decision.

4. The only ground for appeal by the Insurance Company is that, the Learned Tribunal has committed an error in fixing monthly income of the deceased. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Learned Tribunal has not considered the evidences on record and came to an erroneous finding. It has been stated by the claimant that deceased was an employee of Reshmi Metalics Limited; to prove the income of the deceased one of the employees of the Reshmi Metalic Limited deposed as PW 3.

5. Learned Advocate for Insurance Company further submits that, during the cross-examination, PW-3 stated that whether any appointment letter was issued in the name of the deceased is not within his knowledge. He also could not produce the account statement before the Court. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the PW 3 stated that the Pay-slip of the deceased does not show the number of GPF and ESI.

6. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company further argued that the M/s. Reshmi Metalics Ltd. is a private limited Company. The document submitted before the Learned Tribunal are not sufficient to assess the income of the deceased.

7. He further argued that the documents were filed on request of the claimants, so there is an every chance of concoction. He submits that the Learned Tribunal has not properly enquire about the income of the deceased and came to an erroneous finding. He argued that, in this case the income of the deceased should be fixed notionally.

8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the argument advances by the Insurance Company is baseless and imaginary. PW 3 appeared with the necessary document of the said company. His identity was not challenged. Moreover, the evidences both the oral and documentary, are sufficient to assess the income of the deceased. The Insurance company has not adduced any contrary evidence thus, in this case the Learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased

9. In support of his contention, he cited some decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench.

10. In Md. Siddiqui and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 57. In the cited case filed u/s 166 of MV Act, at the time of computation of income, The Learned Tribunal fixed the salary upon the evidence of the employer and the salary certificate was marked wherein the High Court due to absence voucher and income return took minimum wages for un-skilled worker; but, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no allegation that PW 2 was set up for the purpose of present case, interference of the High Court with finding of monthly income of the deceased passed on utter presumption uncalled for.

11. In Ruma Raha and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2018) SCC Online Cal 16892 the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court has held:

18. The victim was employed as a sales officer in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan