IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

FMA 38 of 2024

Baldeo Oraon and Anr.

Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

For the appellants: Mr. Gobinda Saha, Adv.,

Mr. Tamal Kumar Sen, Adv., Mr. Milon Ch. Laskar, Adv.,

Ms. Priyanka Dey, Adv.

For the respondent no.1/ insurance company: Mr. Rishin Chakraborty, Adv.

Heard on : 12.08.2025 Judgement on : 18.08.2025

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J:-

1. In the instant appeal the judgment dated 14.06.2024 as passed in MAC case no.115 of 2020 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jalpaiguri (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal in short) is

assailed.

2. By the impugned judgement the said Tribunal in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act in short) passed an award for Rs.9,10,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the application

till realization of the awarded amount in favour of the claimants.

3. The claimants who are the husband and daughter of the deceased felt aggrieved with the quantum of the award and thus preferred the instant appeal.

4. In course of his argument Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants/appellants at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the impugned judgement as available at page nos. 14 to 25 of the informal paper book as filed by him.

5. Attention of this Court is drawn to internal page nos. 6 to 9 of the impugned judgement. It is submitted by Mr. Saha that before the said Tribunal though it is the specific case of the claimants/appellants herein that the deceased prior to her accidental death was a tea garden worker and in that capacity she used to earn a sum of Rs. 300 per day towards her wages, however the said Tribunal for the reason best known to it have failed to consider the evidence as led by the appellants in the said Tribunal and thus without assigning any cogent reason came to a finding that the notional income of the deceased would be considered to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month which is without any basis.

6. In course of his argument Mr. Saha places his reliance upon the reported decision of Syed Sadiq and Ors vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 and an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.12.2022 as passed in Civil Appeal No. 8960 of 2017 in the case of Muhammed @ Kunjumuhammed vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Saha that in the reported decision of Syed Sadiq (supra)the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering an appeal preferred by the claimants on account of death of a person who used to do vegetable vending work came to a finding that the notional income of the said deceased ought not be less than Rs. 4500/- per month. It is further submitted by Mr. Saha that the Hon’ble Apex Court come to such finding on the basis of some guess work in absence of any supporting material considering the fact that it is difficult for the appellants to collect documentary evidence to substantiate the actual income of the deceased.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Saha that in the case of Muhammed @ Kunjumuhammed (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court had accepted the notional income of a home maker to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month. It is thus submitted by Mr. Saha that the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the said Tribunal is required to be enhanced.

9. In course of his argument Mr. Saha also places his reliance upon the reported decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is submitted by Mr. Saha in the said reported decision of Pranay Seti (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for enhancement of calculation at the rate of 10 % in every three years in respect of conventional heads namely; loss of estate, loss