IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that notional income for homemakers must reflect their contributions and future prospects should be considered in compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul) , J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No.313 of 2007, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The facts:-

“On 16.02.1996 at about 12.45 hours the petitioner’s wife Sona Bhutia met with an accident by the offending vehicle at Bungray Qulay, near Suren Gulay Gairibus, under P.S Jaldacca, District-Darjeeling. Due to such accident she received hurt and died. Over such accident Jaldacca P.S. Case No.4/1996 dated 16.02.1996 under Sections 279/338/304A of IPC was started against the driver of the offending vehicle.”

3. The opposite party no.2, National Insurance Company Ltd. has contested the present case by filing a written statement, denying all the material allegations made by the petitioner in his application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is the main contention of the O.P. No.2 that the driver was not at all responsible for the accident, as he was driving the offending vehicle at a very moderate speed with all care and caution as per M.V. Act at the material point of time. And that, deceased Sona Bhutia herself was liable for such accident.

4. The claimants examined two witnesses and relevant documents proved, were marked Exhibit- 1 to 6.

5. The opposite party/Insurance Company did not adduce any witness nor produced documents in support of their contention.

6. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence and materials on record, held:-

“MAC Case No.313 of 2007

Dated: 15.09.2008

Although no age proof certificate has been filed by the petitioner to prove the age of the deceased Sona Bhutia, but it is seen from Ext. 3 (copy of P.M. examination report) that Sona Bhutia died at the age of 30 years. So, I select 18 as multiplier for the purpose of compensation of the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant-petitioner in this case.

Income of the deceased Sona Bhutia, as claimed by the petitioner has not been proved by any evidence. Accordingly, I accept Rs.15,000/- per annum as the deceased’s gross notional income treating her as a non- earning person. From this amount it has to be deducted the deceased’s personal living expenses about which no evidence is forthcoming. In the absence of evidence, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1994 A.C.J. at page 1 that it is not unusual to deduct 1/3rd of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and to treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent by the deceased on the members of his family and his dependants. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. One third of Rs.15,000/- per annum comes to Rs.5,000/- per annum and after deduction of this amount from Rs.15,000/- the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum is to be treated as to the amount likely to have been spent by the deceased on the members of his family and dependants. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the multiplier 18 which appears to be appropriate to the age of the deceased Sona Bhutia. The compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 18). Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate are to be added with the said amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation would be Rs.1,89,500/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,90,000/- only.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, at this stage I am not awarding any interest in favour of the claimant petitioner. It will, however, not be unreasonable to allow interest in favour of the claimant- petitioner @ 9% per annum only to meet the undue delay in payment of compensation by the opposite parties to the claimant-petitioner costly.

Sd/- Judge, M.A.C.T.(D.J.)

Jalpaiguri.”

7. Being aggrieved, the claimants/appellant has preferred the present appeal on the gro