The Block Development Officer is authorized to issue income certificates, which must be considered valid unless contradicted by substantive evidence, ensuring just compensation under statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The short question that falls for determination in this Appeal is;

1. Whether the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim, at Gangtok (hereinafter, 'MACT'), vide the impugned Judgment, in MACT Case No.35 of 2020, dated 30-10-2021, committed an error in rejecting the Income Certificate, Exhibit 8, issued by the Block Development Officer (for short 'BDO'), which quantified the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only, and instead assessed her monthly income as Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only?

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants while advancing his arguments, referred to Exhibit 8, the Income Certificate, dated 15-07-2020, issued by the BDO, Block Administrative Centre, Dentam, West Sikkim, certifying that late Bishnu Maya Chettri, daughter of Chandra Bahadur Chettri, had an income of Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only, per month, from agriculture and business. That, despite the Certificate having been issued by the appropriate Authority who was duly empowered, the Learned MACT declined to accept it and proceeded to assess the victim's monthly income at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, sans evidence. That the deceased owned two beauty parlours, was also an agriculturist and obtaining income from all three sources. Hence, the Judgment and Award of the Learned MACT be set aside and the compensation be computed in terms of the actual income of the deceased as revealed in Exhibit 8.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3, (Insurance Company) contended that there is no error in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Learned MACT as the statutes requires the compensation to be 'just' and all powers of the Civil Courts are vested on the Learned MACT to take steps in this context. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 4 put forth no submissions.

4(i). Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and examined all evidence and documents on record, the facts summarized are that the Claimants (hereinafter 'Appellants') filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, the 'M.V. Act'), on account of the death of the deceased, Bishnu Maya Chettri, aged about thirty-four years, daughter of Appellants No.1, 2 and allegedly of Appellant No.3 also, and sibling of the Appellant No.4, in a motor vehicle accident on 20-06-2020 at Dhar Gaon, Zoom, Naya Bazaar, West Sikkim. The victim succumbed to her injuries on the spot, the cause of death being the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Mahindra Maxx, bearing registration No.SK-02-J-0348. At the time of her demise she had a monthly income of Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only.

(ii) The Appellants sought compensation of a sum of Rs.71,02,200/- (Rupees seventy one lakhs, two thousand and two hundred) only. The Learned MACT considered the evidence-on-record and computed the compensation at Rs.34,30,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs and thirty thousand) only, in the impugned Judgment, assessing the monthly income of the victim at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, despite the Income Certificate issued by the BDO placing her monthly income at Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only.

5. The arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3 with regard to 'just compensation' is to say the least, obnoxious. It is but apposite to remark that the compensation which is to be 'just compensation' is in terms of Section