General Manager vs Badsha Miah And Ors

Heard Mr. K. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent.

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District in case No.T.S.(MAC) 02 of 2017.

The main ground of challenge is that, the learned Tribunal without taking into account the fact that the claimant had miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of her income has determined the income of the claimant to the tune of Rs.7,500/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the findings returned by the learned Tribunal which is reproduced hereunder:-

" On pleadings and evidence on record it is found that the deceased had a poultry firm business and she also dealing with cattle out of which she used to earn Rs.10,000/- and at the time of accident she was aged about 60 years. But in support of her profession and age the claimant petitioners did not produce any document or any other cogent evidence. Since no cogent document is produced before this Court in respect of income of the victim Sahera Khatun. So this Court has no other alternative but to assess the income of the victim Sahera Khatun as day labour. The accident took place in the year 2016 and at that time in the rural area a day labour would have earned Rs.300/- per day from all sources being a labour. Thus, considering this aspect her monthly income is assessed as Rs.9,000/-. But considering the uncertainty of work it is presumed a day labour ought to have worked at least 25 days in a month. So, her monthly income comes to Rs.7,500/-

It has already been stated that at the time of death the age of deceased Sahera Khatun was about 60 years and as such considering her age it is presumed that she is entitled to get 10% of her income as future prospect as she is within age group of 50 to 60 years. Therefore, it comes to Rs.750/-. So, her monthly income comes to (Rs.7,500/- + 750/-) = Rs.8,250/-. But it is also presumed that she ought to have incurred at least one-fourth (1/4th) of her income as personal expenses. So, her monthly income comes to (Rs.8,250/- -2,060/-) = Rs.6,190/-. Therefore, her yearly income comes to (Rs.6,190/- x 12) = Rs.74, 280/-"

In this way, the total award was made at Rs.7,38,520/-(rupees seven lakhs thirty eight thousand five hundred twenty) in favour of the claimant.

As I said earlier, the entire challenge of the judgement is centred around the above finding of the learned Tribunal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the said findings of the learned Tribunal and tested the reasonableness of the said finding. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. The learned Tribunal had not taken into account the claim of the claimant that she used to run a poultry farm and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. A lady of 60 years staying in a rural area should not be treated as so weak that she is unable to earn Rs.300/- per day as a day labour. The income per day as determined by the learned Tribunal, according to me, is quite reasonable which has been reflected in the judgment. The loss of future earning and her entitlement to further 100% future prospect of her income is also not unreasonable. In view of above, the instant appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

At this juncture, it is informed that the order passed by this Court on 22.11.2019 directing the Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount was not complied with. This is enough to draw Contempt of Court proceeding against the concerned authority of the Insurance Company. However, at this stage, I refrain myself from drawing up any proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. But, I direct the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount within one month from today. Needless to say, the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- which was deposited at the time of filing of the appeal will be adjusted with the total amount of compensation.

With the above observation and direction, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

Send down the L.C.Rs.