The court emphasized the importance of evidence-based assessment of income and the application of principles of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in determining compensation in motor accident claims.

This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,96,850/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the @ of 6% per annum and further ordered that in case the amount is not deposited within two months the interest payable would be 12% per annum.

2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing No.TR-01-J-5012. There was a collision between the motor cycle and one car bearing registration No.TR-03-B-0363. The claimant suffered serious injuries and his leg was amputated. According to the claimant his bike was stand still on the side of the road and the car hit the bike. The claimant also claimed that he was running a grocery shop and doing agriculture work and that he had suffered 80% disability due to the amputation of his leg.

3. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads:

(i) Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-

(ii) Cost of treatment Rs. 2,69,852/-

(iv) Loss of future in come Rs.11,52,000/-

(v) Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-

(vi) Future discomfort and loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-

(vi) Transportation expenses Rs. 10,000/-

Total Rs.14,96,852/-

While awarding compensation under the various heads the award of the learned Tribunal made virtually no reference to the evidence and the award has been passed in a very casual manner.

4. First, I proceed to decide the issue of negligence. According to the insurance company the claimant was also negligent. It is alleged that the claimant did not have a valid driving licence and that he did not know how to drive a motorcycle. It was also urged that there was a head on collision and therefore, this Court may presume that both sides were equally responsible.

5. In the claim petition it was clearly stated that at Naljala S. B. School near the house of Zakir Miah the claimant had stopped the motorcycle for talking to Murshed Miah and others when the car hit him. In the evidence also Nur Alam, PW-1 made the identical statement. In the cross-examination it has been put to him that he did not have a valid driving licence which fact has been admitted by him. However, no suggestion was put to him that his motorcycle was not in a stationary condition at the time when the accident took place. Therefore, I uphold the judgment of the learned Tribunal that the negligence was only of the car driver. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

6. Next, coming to the question of compensation. Before deciding the issue of compensation one has to determine the income of the deceased. The claimant in his affidavit and in the claim petition had claimed that he used to run a grocery shop and besides grocery shop he has vast landed property and therefore, was earning Rs.8,500/- per month. A certificate issued by the District Collector has been produced wherein the income has been stated to be Rs.8,000/-. This has been accepted by the learned Tribunal to be gospel truth. This Court in Shri Tarun kumar Reang Vrs. Sri Rakesh Debnath and others: MAC App. No.02 of 2010 decided on 17th June, 2015 has held as follows:

“[10] I have highlighted all these pointes to emphasize the fact that in a Court of law, even before a Tribunal no reliance can be placed on such a certificate because such certificate has no statutory backing to it. Such a certificate is not issued to under any authority of law and as such no Court should blindly follow the certificate and the income must be assessed on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and not on the basis of such certificates.”

No reliance can be placed on such certificate. This certificate is not worth the scrap of paper it was written on. No Tribunal or Court can rely upon such a certificate to assess the income in a motor accident claim cases.

7. Having held so this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the claimant at th