JENALI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants of the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and order dated 3. 4. 2001 passed in M. A. C. Case No. 355 of 1997 of the learned Judge of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, who is also holding the post of learned Additional district Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellants before this court that despite the evidence on record so far as the age is concerned as it appears from the voter identity card as issued under rule 28 of the Registration of electors Rules, 1960, the learned Tribunal below came to an erroneous finding that there was no proof of age of the victim at the time of the accident and accordingly did not apply any multiplier system in terms of the structured formula to quantify the amount of compensation. It is also the grievance about the fixation of the income by the learned Tribunal below by contending, inter alia, that in the claim application though the claimants mentioned the income of the deceased who was engaged to sell vegetables in the market was Rs. 60 per day in average and in the deposition which remain even unshaken in cross the pw 1 deposed the income range as Rs. 60 to Rs. 70 per day, learned Tribunal came to a finding that there was no proof of income and accordingly without applying the structured formula granted a lump sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation by adjudicating the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.