NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ALOMAYEE RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 485 of 2005. By this judgment, learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 4,86,000 towards compensation against death of the sole earning member of the claimant's family. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal and the claimant on the other hand has filed a cross-objection against some of the findings of the impugned Tribunal and has prayed for enhancement of compensation. One Alomayee Roy as claimant instituted MAC Case No. 485 of 2005 before the MAC Tribunal stating that her elder son Ananda Ray @ Kailash Ray was a vegetable vendor aged about 20 years. He used to earn Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month; On 16th September, 2005 when he was proceeding to purchase goods on his bicycle, he was knocked down by a truck bearing registration No. HR-38K/5081 at about 8.40 a.m. near Chhagalia Pt. II point on the National Highway No. 31. He died on the spot and thereby the whole family became destitute. Apart from the widowed mother, the claimant, he left behind two minor brothers and one minor sister of the deceased. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 lakh. The owner Mahinder Singh did not contest the proceeding and so it proceed ex-parte against him. The National Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and submitted written statement contesting the claim. The records of Golokganj P.S. Case No. 230 of 2005 under Sections 279/304-A/427 of I.P.C. was also called for by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) Upon such rival contention of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues which are as below:

(3.) I have heard Ms. S. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the claimant. I perused the evidence on record and the exhibits adduced by the claimant along with the impugned judgment and award, Ms. S. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant, would argue that the victim was unmarried person as on the date of accident and so there should have been 50% deduction towards his personal expenses. But in the case in hand, the learned Tribunal fell into error by making deduction of 1/3rd only.