IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compensation under Section 163A is payable regardless of the vehicle's permit status, emphasizing the structured formula for calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the award dated 17th day of April, 2015 passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, District - Cooch Behar, in M.A.C. Case No. 18 of 2011 (Dwijen Roy & Ors. Vs. Janab Ali Mia & Anr.), under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. THE FACTS :-

“On 09.08.2010 at about 14.30 hours deceased Basanti Roy and another lady named Sarodini Roy were returning their respective home from Central Bank of India, Pundibari Branch, after completion of their banking work along the left flank of the metal road on foot. While they reached near Pundibari Netaji Bhaban then all on a sudden, one Truck bearing no. WB-69/3748 dashed said Basanti Roy and Sarodini Roy from their back side and ran over said Basanti Roy. The truck was coming at a very high speed and in a very rash and negligent manner. As a result said Basanti Roy sustained grave multiple bleeding injuries on her person including head and said Sarodini Roy sustained grave multiple injuries on her person. Thereafter they were taken to Pundibari Block Primary Health Centre, Dist. – Cooch Behar by the local people of that locality and during their admission, there on examination Basanti Roy was declared ‘Dead’ by the attending Doctor and said Sarodini Roy was referred to Cooch Behar MJN Hospital for better treatment and management. Victim Basanti Roy was by profession a worker of one Swa-Nirbhar Ghosthi and she was an earning member of her family and used to maintain her family by earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The petitioners being husband and daughters (legal heirs) have filed this case for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) only from the OPs for causing loss and damages suffered by them owing to the death of deceased Basanti Roy by use of the vehicles bearing no. WB-69/3748.”

3. Both the opposite parties appeared after receipt of notice in this case and filed their written statements but only the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company contested this case.

4. The O.P. No.2/Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. has contested this claim case in absence of the registered owner of the Truck being No. WB 69/3748 taking permission of the tribunal to contest the case and by submitting its written statement, denying all the material allegation of the claim.

5. The claimants examined two witnesses and relevant documents were marked Exhibit 1 to 7. The opposite party/Insurance Company/Appellant herein did not adduce any evidence.

6. The Learned Tribunal finally held as follows :-

“M.A.C.C. No. 18 of 2011

Dated:-17.04.2015

In view of the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act the compensation amount would be of Rs 5,76,000/- after excluding One-Third of this amount, as in view of Second Schedule it would have incurred by the deceased for her own expenses. In addition to that the petitioners are entitled funeral expenses and loss of consortium. They are not entitled to get any compensation as loss of estate as there is loss of Estate.

Accordingly, the compensation amount would be (Rs. 5,76,000/- - 1,92,000/-) = Rs. 3,84,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- (As Funeral Expenses)+ Rs. 20,000/- (As loss of Consortium). Then it net total Rs. 4,09,000/-.

Sd/-

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal

Additional District Judge,

Fast Track Court, Cooch Behar”

7. The Insurance Company being aggrieved has preferred the appeal on the ground that the offending vehicle did not have a route permit.

8. Considering the materials and evidence on record, it is evident that :-

(i) There being no documents of Income (victim being a housewife), the income of the deceased be fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month considering that the accident occurred on 09.08.2010. (Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 353)

(ii) Age of the victim was 30 years, thus multiplier of 17 would be applicable. (Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121)

(iii) The offending vehicle had valid license (Exhibit