The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable documents for age determination and income assessment, and the court's authority to reassess compensation based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1

2. This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 247 of 2013. The claimant-appellants has urged the grounds of objection primarily for enhancing the award as made by the tribunal.

3. There is no dispute that on 07.04.2013 one Umesh Chandra Debbarma when returning to his home from Champaknagar Bazar by riding a bicycle at about 630 p.m. while he reached near Champaknagar Lamps on 44 National High way [Assam Agartala Road] at that time one vehicle bearing No.TR01S1540(Canter truck) coming from the same direction, dashed him as the vehicle at the relevant point of time was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Umesh Debbarma sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to Jirania Hospital by the local people, but the attending doctor immediately declared him dead.

4. At the time of accident the deceased was, according to the claimants, of 45 years of age and he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/per month as a driver of heavy vehicle. It appears that after recording the evidence, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,90,400/inclusive of the loss of consortium to the claimant appellant No.1.

5. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the finding of tribunal on the age of the deceased is entirely erroneous and emanates from the misreading of the documents such as the transfer certificate where the date of birth of the deceased has been recorded as 03.01.1970 and the postmortem examination report where the doctor has recorded the age of the deceased as 45 years.

6. For complete non-appreciation of those documents the tribunal has returned the finding that the age of the victim would be in the range of 51 to 55 years and accordingly, the compensation has been assessed. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that PW4, Rati Ranjan Debbarma is the employer of the deceased and he came to the inquiry and stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,000 per month, despite that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/per month.

7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that if the age of the victim be determined on the basis of those two documents as 45 years, the multiplier would be 14, instead of 11 as applied by the tribunal. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further asserted that the amount given as consortium is very meagre on deviating from the rate of consortium given by the apex Court in various cases. He has urged for reassessing the compensation and for increasing the loss of future prospect in terms of Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh & Others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403.

8. From the other side Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 while repelling the submission made by Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there is no evidence that PW4 was the owner of any vehicle or that the deceased was his driver of such vehicle. On such premises, the tribunal has correctly assessed his income at Rs.4000/. There may not be any interference on such determination. He has further submitted that there is no cogent evidence of income of the deceased particularly in terms of the claim as raised by the appellants in the claim petition. He has strongly defended the award as just and reasonable in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and according to him, there is no space for interference in the said award.

9. Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has adopted the submission made by Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

10. Having scrutinized the records as placed before this court as well as appreciati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document