The court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation assessment, affirming reliance on vehicle ownership for income determination despite challenges regarding the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

[1] Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. impugning the judgment and award dated 08.10.2021, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 122/2019, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 29,27,000/- along with an interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization to the claimant's/respondents.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 23.08.2017, the husband of the respondent No. 1, namely, Tulu Baishnab, was going from Kalain side towards his house by riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-11B-7049. When he reached at Khelma Part-VI near Gumrah Bazar on National Highway No. 6, all of a sudden, a truck bearing Registration No. AS- 01BC-1759, which was proceeding from the opposite direction and was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit his motorcycle.

[4] As a result of the said accident, the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1, sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to Kalain Hospital. However, the doctors declared him dead in the hospital. Thereafter, the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4, had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Tulu Baishnab in a motor vehicular accident.

[5] The present appellant, namely, the insurer of the offending vehicle, contested the claim of the present respondents by filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar framed the following issues:-

ISSUES

“(i) Whether Late Tulu Baishnab, the deceased, died as a result of road traffic/motor vehicle accident occurred on 23-08-2017 at about 11:30p.m. at Khelma Part-VI near Gumrah Bazar under the jurisdiction of Katigorah P.S? If So,

(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the O.P No-2/driver of the Truck bearing Registration No AS-01BC-1759? If yes,

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the just and reasonable amount of compensation? AND

(iv) By whom amongst the O.Ps the same is payable?

[6] In order to prove their case, the claimant sides examined the claimant No. 1 as PW-1 and exhibited about 19 documents. The insurance company did not adduce any evidence in defence. Ultimately by the judgment and award which has been impugned in this appeal, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, had allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants and directed the present appellant to pay compensation to the claimants in the manner as already described in the following paragraphs of this judgment.

[7] Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant insurance company is aggrieved mainly with the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. He submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 19,500/- without there being any basis for same on record. He also submits that the Tribunal also erred in relying on the income certificate issued by the Circle Officer and which was exhibited as Exhibit-16. He