Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smti Manju Saha - Respondents
MAC APP. NO.09 OF 2012
Decided On : 01-12-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that income in motor accident claim cases cannot be assessed solely based on certificates issued by SDMs and must be supported by evidence. The judgment also clarified the provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding the award of interest by the Tribunal.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which empowers the Tribunal to award simple interest at a fixed rate from the date of making the claim petition. The court highlighted that there is no provision under the Act empowering the Tribunals to award penal interest. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to assess income in motor accident claim cases and held that income cannot be assessed solely based on certificates issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs).
Fact of the Case:
The Insurance Company challenged the award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, disputing the assessment of the deceased's income and the interest rate. The claimants, widow and minor daughter of the deceased, alleged that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000 per month, while the appellant argued that the income was lower based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the income certificate issued by the SDM, which was the only document relied upon to prove the income, lacked legal backing. The court emphasized the need for evidence to assess income in motor accident claim cases and held that income cannot be assessed solely based on such certificates. The court also modified the compensation amount and interest rate awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of the deceased's income and the interest rate for compensation. The court also addressed the validity of the income certificate issued by the SDM and the legal provisions governing the award of interest in motor accident claim cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of legal backing for the income certificate issued by the SDM, the need for evidence to assess income in motor accident claim cases, and the specific provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding the award of interest by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, modified the compensation amount and interest rate, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount within a specified timeframe. The court also clarified that there is no provision for awarding penal interest under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
By means of this petition the Insurance Company has laid challenge to the award dated 13.09.2011 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. T.S. (MAC) 463 of 2009 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.21,72,000/-in favour of the claimants and also held them entitled to interest @ 6% per annum but further directed that in case the amount is not paid within 45(forty five) days then the interest shall be payable @12% per annum.
2. The main grievance of Sri P. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in accepting the certificate of the SDM and in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/-per month. The claimants are the widow and minor daughter of the deceased. In the claim petition it was alleged that the deceased was aged 32(thirty two) years old. It was further stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. In answer to column no.6 relating to payment of income tax, it was mentioned that the deceased was paying income tax as per law.
3. In the claim petition it was also stated that the deceased was a licensed wholesaler of vegetable and fruits and stationary shop and supplier of generated power through G.B. Bazar Complex. According to the claimants, the deceased had engaged 2 (two) employees at a salary of Rs.3000/-per month and used to earn at least Rs.20,000/- per month.
The case of the appellants was that the deceased was earning more than Rs.20,000/-per month and was paying income tax. No proof of payment of income tax was given. Anybody earning more than Rs.1,50,000/-was required to file a return at the relevant time. No return has been filed and, therefore, the income could not be taken at more than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum.
4. In support of the claim petition certain documents were filed and one of the main documents relied upon is the income certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura which reads as follows:-
“GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE
SADAR WEST TRIPURA.
(GENERAL : SECTION)
No. 2738 F.5(21)/SDM/SDR/GL/10, Dated. 29/12/2010
INCOME CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the monthly income of deceased Chandan Saha, S/O. Late Khir Mohan Saha, H/O. Smt. Manju Saha of Vill. Jagatpur, P/O. Abhoynagar, Sadar was Rs. 18,000/-(Eighteen Thousand) only approximately before his death.
This income of deceased Chandan Saha, has been ascertained after proper verification by the authorized officials of SDM's office, Sadar, West Tripura.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Sadar, West Tripura.”
5. This is the only document relied upon to prove the income. The widow stepped into the witness box and gave a simple statement. One other witness was examined namely Sri Kajal Ghosh who stated that he is the elected secretary of G.B. Bazar Byabasai Samity and according to him Chandan Saha was licensed businessman of vegetables and fruits, stationary and besides these he used to supply power through G.B. Bazar and its neighbouring areas by installing two generators.
6. The claimants have also placed on record a school certificate of the deceased which shows that he was born on 01.01.1971. The accident took place on 22.11.2009 and therefore, he was between 38 (thirty eight) and 39 (thirty nine) years of age at the time of the accident. It is thus clear that the averment made in the claim petition that he was aged 32(thirty two) years at the time of the accident was totally false.
7. The claimants have also placed on record one municipal license issued by the Agartala Municipality which shows that the deceased was granted a license in the year 1988 permitting him to sell vegetables and fruits but it is important to note that the license itself shows that was valid only up to 31.08.1989 and there is nothing on record to show that this license was renewed ever thereafter. There is, however, another license issued by the Municipal Authority on record which shows that the claimant
