MINA DAS Vs. TAPAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is preferred challenging the judgment and award dtd. 3/6/2024 delivered by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC)195 of 2022. By the said judgment/award, Learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs.8,16,500.00 as compensation in favour of the claimant-petitioners appellants and fastened the liability of payment of compensation to the O.P. No.2 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AC-1888(TATA Tripper Truck).

(2.) Heard Mr. B. Debnath, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and also heard Mr. A. Das, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance Company Limited i.e. the respondent No.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 in spite of service of notice.

(3.) In course of hearing of argument, Mr. B. Debnath, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants confined his arguments only on two points that the tribunal below determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000.00 per month all though he was a student of Ram Thakur College pursuing his studies in BA stream in English Honours, 4 th Semester as an unskilled worker which according to Learned counsel for the petitioner appellants/claimant the Learned Tribunal below committed an error which actually should be Rs.20,000.00 per month. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submitted that by the said judgment, the Learned Tribunal below in para No.33 determined the total amount of compensation at Rs.16,33,000.00 but the Learned Tribunal below decided that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. So, the Learned Tribunal below deducted 50% of amount towards contributory negligence and awarded only 50% of amount in favour of the present appellants as compensation which according to Learned counsel for the appellants was perverse and the Learned Tribunal below did not consider the oral and documentary evidence on record adduced by the appellants properly.