Compensation determination must reflect the realities of the victim's situation, taking account of unchallenged testimony even in the absence of documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Nalbari, in MAC Case No.240 (Injury)/2017, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2020, the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari, has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.8,57,900/- being the compensation in favour of the respondent No.1/claimant within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on 23.10.2017.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as under:-

“The respondent No.1, namely, Haidar Ali met with an accident on 02.09.2017 at about 3:30 p.m. at Kekankuchi Chowk while he was proceeding through Bartola-Barnibari PWD Road with his friend Issha Haque on a motorcycle. On their way, at Kekankuchi Chowk, one auto rickshaw, bearing No.AS-14C-4826, which was driven at a high speed and negligently, dashed against the motorcycle. In the said accident, the respondent No.1/claimant and his friend sustained grievous injuries and they were taken to Mukalmua PHC, from where they were referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), but from the GMCH he was taken to Guwahati Neurological Research Centre (GNRC) Hospital and he received treatment there from 02.09.2017 till 09.09.2017 as indoor patient. In connection with the said accident, Mukalmua P.S. Case No.349/2017 was registered.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein filed one claim petition under Section 166 /140 of the M.V. Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending auto rickshaw claiming a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- under different heads. The respondent No.1 herein becomes permanently disabled due to the accident which affects his future prospect also.

The appellant herein contested the said petition by filing written statement. The owner and driver of the said auto rickshaw did not contest the petition. The appellant herein had taken a stand that the petition is not maintainable and the statements and averment made in the claim petition are false and the insurer of the motorcycle was not impleaded in the case.

Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed following issues:-

(i) Whether the claimant got injury on 02.09.2017 at about 3:30 p.m. at Kekankuchi Chowk due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle No.AS-14C-4826?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for, and if so, to what extent and from whom?

(iii) To what other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to?

Thereafter, taking the evidence of the claimant and hearing learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.8,57,900/- as compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.”

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds:-

(i) That the learned Member failed to appreciate the fact that in absence of any reliable evidence to prove the income of the claimant, who was alleged to be a mason, the income cannot be presumed to be Rs.12,000/- per month and this finding of the learned Member suffers from non-application of mind, as at the relevant point of time the claimant was barely 21 years o