ALLHADI MAJHI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : A motor accident claimed the life of the soulmate of P.W.2 in fortuitous circumstances as known to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). persuaded by the post situation of the loss of the bread-earner of the family P.Ws. 1 and 2(mother and widow of the deceased) preferred a Claim Petition under the said Act before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katwa, on 9.4.2007.

(2.) AFTER having considered the evidence of both the mother and widow of the deceased (P. Ws. 1 and 2), applying the principal of notional income the Tribunal concluded that as the income earned from the job of agricultural work was not satisfactorily proved the amount was assessed at Rs. 1,79,500/- towards compensation. The break up value of the same which we find from the tail-end of the judgment and order under appeal is as follows : - Rs.92,250/- for the widow of the deceased arid Rs. 87.250/- for his mother. Both the break up amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum since the date of filing of the Claim Application, i.e. 9.4.2007.

(3.) AFTER we have heard Shri Banerjee and Shri Goswami for the respective parties, we find that in view of the decisions in Smt. Sabita Singha and Ors. (supra) and Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. (supra), this question is no longer res integra. Where there is evidence of an income which remains uncontroverted and as rightly pointed by Shri Banerjee that the evidence of the mother of the deceased (P.W.1) with regard to the quantum of income has not been controverted by the Insurance Company by way of producing any witness or effective cross-examination, it stands that the deceased has earning of Rs.3,000/-per month. The Tribunal had entered into the discussion that in the absence of any documentary proof or any solid documents to show the income, he was assessed on notional basis cannot stand to reason as has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Bilasini Mondal (supra), as it is quite natural in rural area that person engaged in agricultural labour is not expected to possess any documentary evidence in support of his income or any corroborative papers of his claim. We are inclined to accept the amount of income as Rs. 3,000/- as even in those days when the incident took place in the year 2006, the minimum income of a person can be taken to be Rs. 100/- per day. By this reckoning Rs.3,000/- per month is not exaggerated sum [see Laxmi Devi and Qrs. v Mohammad Tabbar and Anr. reported in (2008)2 WBLR (SC) 585].