IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to pending claims, ensuring claimants receive the benefits of the new compensation schedule.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The present Appeal by the claimants (substituted) has been preferred against the Judgment and Award passed on 31st August 2010 by Sri Sambhu Nath Chatterjee, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Nadia, in M.A.C. Case No. 347 of 2006 under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

“That on 05.08.2006 while the victim Anuday @ Naba Kumar Biswas was travelling in the bus, bearing No. WGB-5665, named ‘ATANU’ for going from Karimpur to Krishnagar. At that time when the bus reached near Paninala Satyapriya Smriti Siksha Niketan at a very high speed, it dashed against a mango tree and overturned into a roadside ditch. As it result, many passengers received severe injuries and some of them died on the spot. The victim also lost his left leg and he was admitted in Shaktinagar Hospital for treatment, but he died there. His P.M. examination was held on the self-same day.

After the accident Kotwali P.S. Case No. 238/06 dated 05.08.2006 u/s 279/338/304A I.P.C. was started.

It was stated that the victim at the time of accident used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. The vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance policy was valid at the relevant point of time.

On the basis of the said fact, the Claimants prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case and as such, the case proceeded exparte against him.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written objection and it was denied that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question the said accident took place. It was stated that the deceased had no fixed income and actual income of the victim has been suppressed and the amount claimed is an exaggerated one and as such the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation.”

3. The claimant examined three witnesses on their behalf, and proved documents marked Exhibit 1 to 4.

4. P.W.1 being the spouse stated that the victim had an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

5. P.W.2 an eyewitness stated that he admitted the victim at Shaktinagar Hospital.

6. P.W. 3, a police witness has deposed that the victim, aged 36 years died in an accident and that the post mortem was conducted under the Kotwali P.S. Case which was registered in respect of the accident in this case.

7. The Respondent/Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses on their behalf.

8. The Learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,66,000/- in total in favour of the petitioners on the following Calculation:-

“……… Notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum is to be considered in calculating the quantum of compensation and since the victim at the time of death was aged 36 years, so multiplier ‘16’ is to be applied in this case, If 1/3rd from the said notional income of 15,000/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the victim had he been alive, then the contribution of the victim to his family would have been Rs. 10,000/- per year and multiplying ‘16’ with this amount, the amount is worked out at Rs. 1,60,000/-, which the petitioners are entitled to get in this case. In addition, they are entitled to get funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- and loss of estate Rs. 2,000/- and the Petitioner No.1 being the widow of the deceased is also entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as loss of consortium. So, in total the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 1,66,000/-.”

9. Tribunal records are before this court.

10. Being aggrieved the claimants have preferred the appeal on the following grounds:-

i) That the monthly income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Applying the notional income is not in accordance with law and against the principle of Natural Justice.

ii) The appellants are entitled to statutory compensation and interest under Section 171 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

11. The Calcutta High Court, in t