The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of the income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer as valid evidence for computing compensation, and the application of principles for computation of loss of income and future prospects as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Company Limited.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Quantification of the compensation of Rs.79,20,000/-(Rupees seventy nine lakhs and twenty thousand) only, payable by the Appellant to the Respondents No. 1 to 3, is being assailed in this Appeal. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter 'learned Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 09 of 2016 (Mrs. Kavita Rai and Others vs. Mr. Moni Prasad Gurung and Others), granted the aforestated amount on account of the death of the husband of Respondent No. 1 and father of Respondents No. 2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident, on 15.09.2015. The claim petition was filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter “M.V. Act”).

2. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein were the Claimants No. 1, 2 and 3 and Respondent No. 4 was the Opposite Party No. 1, while the Appellant herein was the Opposite Party No. 3 before the learned Tribunal. The parties shall be referred to in their order of appearance before this Court.

3. The case of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 before the learned Tribunal was that on 15.09.2015, the victim was travelling to Gangtok, East Sikkim from Dentam, West Sikkim in the vehicle bearing Registration No. SK-02J/1030 (Tata Sumo Gold) when it met with an accident at “Kapuray Bhir,” Ranipool, East Sikkim and the deceased succumbed to his injuries at Central Referral Hospital, Tadong, East Sikkim. That, the cause of death was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver. That, compensation claimed was Rs.65,75,500/-(Rupees sixty five lakhs, seventy five thousand and five hundred) only, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. The Appellant denied and disputed the claims of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 before the learned Tribunal inter alia on grounds that the income of the deceased was not proved. It was also agitated that Exhibit 12 the “Panchayat Recommendation”, Exhibit 13 the letter addressed to the Block Development Officer by Gram Panchayat, 20 Dentam GPU, West Sikkim and Exhibit 14 the income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Dentam, showing the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only, were issued after the death of the deceased. That, the documents were thus unreliable.

5. The points pressed before this Court was that the aforestated documents were procured after the death of the deceased with the motive of acquiring enhanced compensation. That, the income of the deceased has remained unestablished, hence the quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant and the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on Sutinder Pal Singh Arora and others vs. Ashok Kumar Jain and others., 2004 ACJ 782.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 for his part contended that the Block Development Officer who is a Government Officer has certified the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only, per month. That, he is the concerned authority who is empowered to issue the Income Certificate, hence there is no reason to doubt the document Exhibit 14. On this count, the ratio of this Court in The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Meena Bania and Others., (2012) 1 TAC 444 was relied on. That, the vehicle was insured with the Appellant Company and the Insurance Policy valid from 19.04.2015 to midnight of 18.04.2016.

7. I have heard in extenso and considered the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. I have also carefully perused the impugned Judgment including the documents and evidence on record.

8. It is reiterated that the only grievance in this Appeal is the quantum of compensation of Rs.79,20,000/-(Rupees seventy nine lakhs and twenty thousand) only, computed by the