LAWS(CAL)-2014-3-224

BHARAT CHANDRA DAS Vs. KAMAL KUMAR KEDIA

Decided On March 13, 2014
BHARAT CHANDRA DAS Appellant
V/S
Kamal Kumar Kedia Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are the appellants in this appeal. They are aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur dated August 8, 2006 in MAC Case No.253 of 2002. The claimants filed the application under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on March 30, 2002. They filed it as the parents of one Susanta Das. Their case was as follows. In an accident caused by an oil tanker No.WB 33 -2905 driven rashly and negligently their son Susanta was killed on March 11, 2002. Susanta was 18 and earning Rs. 3000 per month. There was in force a policy issued by the insurance company in relation to the use of the vehicle. Hence the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company became liable to pay them Rs. 2 lakh compensation with future prospects addition, interest, and costs. The insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement. In proof of the case the first claimant, the victim's father, testified as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident testified as PW2. The claimants exhibited copies of FIR, charge -sheet, seizure list, post -mortem report, and the insurance policy. The insurance company did not give any evidence.

(2.) THE claims tribunal held as follows. Evidence proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and that the victim killed in it was 18. No witness was examined to prove that the victim had worked as mason in his house. Hence it was not proved that he was a mason. Rs. 15,000 notional income provision of the Second Schedule to the Act should be applied with one -third deduction towards the victim's personal and living expenses.

(3.) MR . Roy appearing for the claimants has submitted as follows. The claims tribunal erred in law by rejecting the evidence that as mason the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month, by not adding 50% of the determined income on account of future prospects, and by ordering that the insurance company would pay 6% p.a. interest only if it failed to pay the amount of compensation within the time mentioned in the award.