IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in motor vehicle accidents involving multiple vehicles, liability must be assessed based on evidence of negligence, and compensation calculations must account for tax deductions and future income prospects.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) :

1. The First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/National Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 3rd January, 2014 passed by the learned Tribunal Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum in MAC Case No. 61/2011 on the following grounds:

(i). The learned Court below erred in law and facts and awarded a compensation only against the appellant/insurer of the alleged offending vehicle No. WGD-1535 though two vehicles were involved in the said accident. Due to head on collusion of the said two vehicles and contributory negligence of the driver and rider of the motor cycle, the accident took place and ultimately victim died;

(ii). The learned Tribunal Judge erred in holding that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle No. WGD-1535 was solely responsible for the alleged accident though the evidence, brought on record, shows otherwise.

(iii). The learned Court below erred in allowing the claim application though the claimants have not made necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the motor cycle being Registration No. WB-54C-8565 and awarded compensation only against the present appellant to the tune of Rs. 20,71,630/-though it ought have 50% since the accident was taken place on the head of collusion and both the driver and rider of the motor cycle were equally responsible of the said accident.

(iv). Lastly, the learned Tribunal wrongly computed compensation on the basis of yearly gross income of the deceased of Rs. 2,38,550/-without deducting the income tax and professional tax.

2. On the other hand, the claimants/respondents filed a COT in the aforesaid appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal wrongly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,71,630/-without adding future prospects and actual general damages. If future prospects and actual general damages would have been considered, the compensation amount would have more than the awarded compensation amount. The learned Tribunal Judge not awarded interest over the total compensation as prayed for from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 21.03.2011 till realization. Hence, both appeal and COT have come up before this Court for their disposal.

3. The brief facts of this case are as under:

3a. The claimants being the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of deceased, namely, Shymal Ojha, caused due to motor traffic accident. Accident was occurred on 06.01.2011 at about 9 am when the deceased was proceeding towards Suri side from his village Gamarkundu through Suri Gamarkundu metalled road by riding a motorcycle being registration no. WB-54C-8565. When he reached at Barahitala Jangal near Tasarkata village, at that point of time, the offending Truck being no. WGD-1535 was coming from opposite direction in wrong side and suddenly dashed the victim as a result victim sustained grievous injuries on his person and expired on the spot. The case of the claimants is that the accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Truck as such they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs with interest from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 21.03.2011 till realization.

3b. It is further contention of the claimants that the victim was a Government Contractor under the State of West Bengal. He was income tax payee. His actual income was Rs. 25,000/-per month prior to the date of accident.

3c. It is further contended by the claimants that the age of the victim/deceased was 48 years old on the date of accident. The prayer of the Appellant is to modify the impugned judgment and award as aforesaid after enhancement of compensation as the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal is inadequate.

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, conclude