Compensation assessments in fatal accident claims should accurately reflect the deceased's potential income based on profession and standing, not merely reliance on notional income standards.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.K.Poddar for the appellant and learned counsel Ms. R.D. Mozumdar for the Insurance Company.

2. The appellant Smt Renu Bala Das is the original claimant and the respondent No.1 is the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent No.2 is Smt Bibha Devi, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25A/0398 (truck) and the respondent No.3 is Shri Manoj Singh, driver of the aforementioned vehicle. The claimant and the insurance company will be referred to according to their original standing.

3. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation which was erroneously calculated by assessing the monthly income of Rs. 5000/- in spite of the fact that the deceased was a practising Advocate with long-standing experience as a lawyer and also an ex-MLA and social worker of repute. It is contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased to be 62 years at the time of his death, and he had a prospect of leading a healthy life for at least another 13 years with every scope of enhancement of his professional income for an average of Rs.25,000/- per month which was ought to have been calculated as income of a lawyer. It is contended that the deceased was not a tort feasor. The Tribunal has erred by not calculating loss of love and affection. The interest was not calculated from the date of filing of the petition and so on and so forth.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has laid stress in her argument that no documents were substantiated as to the income of the deceased as an Advocate or as an ex-MLA. The court has correctly calculated the income of the deceased without valid documents. Rather, the court has calculated a higher income as according to the norms, the notional income ought to have been Rs.132/- per day for an Advocate. It is submitted that the income, if calculated from the date of filing of the petition, has to be calculated on the basis of the bank rate of interest, i.e. 6.7%. It is further contended that only submission by the appellant that the deceased was an Advocate and ex-MLA and the submission that no objection was raised relating to the income of the deceased or the witnesses were cross-examined refuting the income of the deceased cannot be a ground to assess the income and assess a higher income @ Rs 25,000/- without valid documentary evidence. Rather, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that when documents were not submitted substantiating the income of the deceased, the respondent will not be on the back foot by cross-examining the witnesses at this point. The respondent has prayed to dismiss the appeal as the appeal is bereft of merits.

5. The genesis of the case was that on 06.06.2005, at about 10:30 am while the deceased was traveling by the vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-15TR/B782 from Bongaigaon towards Guwahati, with one Shri Lal Mohan Roy, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.AS-25A/0398 (truck) driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner knocked the vehicle No.MH-15TR/B782 on the National Highway under Kamalpur PS. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and he was shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital but unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. This case was filed by the wife of the deceased and notices were issued to the respondents.

6. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted their written statements. The insurer as respondent No.1 has denied that the accident occurred on 06.06.2005 at 10:30 a.m. owing to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle No.AS-25A/0398. They have prayed for dismissal of the claim on this ground and on several other grounds. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their written statement have denied that the truck was involved in any accident. The respondents have claimed for exoneration as the vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insuranc