Point of Law : Section 171 of MV Act provides for award of interest over the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This present appeal is preferred by the claimant and directed against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No.2080/2012.

3. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred by the present appellants claiming compensation on the death of their husband/father in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 14.01.2012 at around 11.30 p.m. on National Highway 37.

4. The brief facts of the claimants pleaded before the learned Tribunal was that on the fateful day i.e. on 14.01.2012 when the deceased was driving his Santro car bearing No. AR-08-5748 and was proceeding from Jorhar towards his residence at Kakojan, Duliajan, the offending ambulance vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01 AF-9198 dashed the said car driven by the deceased husband/father of the claimants.

5. In the said accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The vehicle was Government vehicle more particularly it belongs to the Department Health and Family Welfare, State of Assam.

6. The health department filed their written statement. Both the parties led evidences and exhibited certain documents. The learned Tribunal below basically framed two issues for determination which are quoted herein below:

“(i) Whether on 14.01.2012, at about 11.30 pm, on the National Highway No. 37, about 7 K.M. west of Teok Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ambulance Vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01 AF-9198 on the part of its driver and the said accident has caused the death of the deceased Poran Bordoloi @ Parijat?

(ii) If so, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?”

7. After completion of trial the learned Tribunal below came to a conclusion that there are contributory negligence of the decease husband/father of the claimants appellants and accordingly deducted 50% of the total awarded amount in view of such finding and calculated the award to be Rs. 6,05,000/-.

8. While determining the income, the learned Tribunal below disbelieved/discarded the income tax return exhibited as Ext. 15, Ext. 17 and Ext. 20 and for the reason that no Income Tax Officer came and proved the return and accordingly a notional income of Rs. 8,000/- was calculated and award was passed on the basis of such income.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the claimant has preferred the present appeal basically on two counts i.e. the learned Tribunal below has wrongly discarded the income tax return of the deceased and determined the income to be Rs. 8,000/- without any basis. The second contention is that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law as well as fact in holding that deceased husband contributed the accident inasmuch as there were no issues framed nor any dispute was raised by the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Health Department pleading that there are contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Santro, the deceased husband/father of the claimants appellants.

10. It is also contended by Mr. Chakrabarty that even no evidence was led on that point. The further contention of Mr. Chakrabarty is that while deciding the compensation, the learned Tribunal below has not considered the future prospect of income of deceased husband/father of the claimants/appellants.

11. To buttress his points that the learned Tribunal has erroneously discarded the income tax return, Mr. Chakrabarty relies on the judgment of this court in the case Runubala Pal and Others Vs. Bani Chakrabarty and Others reported in 1998 3 GLT 85 and of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalpanaraj and Others vs. Tamilnadu Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2