IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, reliance on uncontroverted oral testimony is permissible for establishing income and negligence, and married daughters can be recognized as dependents for compensation purposes.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

1. Heard Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Ms. Nuksungtila, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. Z. Kulnu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang in MAC Case No. 11/2019.

3. By the impugned judgment and award, a compensation amounting to Rs. 22,55,000/-was directed to be paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by the appellant-Insurance Company.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

(i) That on 22.01.2019 at about 4 p.m., the deceased, namely, Purnima Saikia, wife of the respondent No. 1, Shri Moni Saikia, was traveling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-07-M-0159 and the said motorcycle met with an accident when one goat appeared before the motorcycle. As the motorbike was driven by the driver at a very high speed, due to sudden application of the brakes, the motorcycle met with an accident and as a result of which the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and ultimately she succumbed to her injuries.

(ii) Shri Moni Saikia, who is the husband of the deceased along with the four children of the deceased, filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, which was registered as the MAC Case No. 11/2019. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, had framed three issues in the MAC Case No. 11/2019.

(iii) The claimants side examined three witnesses in support of their case. No evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company in support of its defence. Ultimately, by the judgment and award which has been impugned in this appeal, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, awarded an amount of Rs 22,55,000/-along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization to the claimants.

5. Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse as while ascertaining the monthly income of the deceased, it relied merely on the oral evidence of the witnesses without there being any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. As apart from oral evidence, no other material was produced, neither the FIR, nor the charge-sheet, nor even the post-mortem report was exhibited and, therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in relying merely on the oral testimony of the witnesses to come to the conclusion that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the ill-fated vehicle.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in considering all the four children who were major as dependent of the deceased and deducting only one-fourth of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses instead of one- third of the same.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant for the appellant has also submitted that as the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tuensang, has relied on evidence which ought not to have relied upon by it, and thus it reached a perverse finding, and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, Mr. B. N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no proof of income of the deceased is not based on fact, as during the inquiry, the claimant's Witness No. 1 has categorically stated that her mother was runni