Divisional Manager vs Smt. Taslima Khatun And Two Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 294 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 4




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                           MAC. App. No. 19 of 2022

Divisional Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

                                                                .....Appellant(s)

                                     VERSUS

Smt. Taslima Khatun and two others

                                                              .....Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)       :   Mr. K. De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)      :   None.
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
                      _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
11/03/2022

Heard Mr. K De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company.

[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section-168 of the Act ibid against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in case No. T.S. (MAC) 12 of 2019.

[3] The facts, in brief, are that on 14.09.2018 at noon about 1700/1430 hours while the deceased Abdul Karim along with his wife Tashlima Khatun i.e. the respondent No.1 herein, were proceeding towards their house from Sonamura by riding a motor bike bearing registration No.TR01-S-8505 with normal speed left side of Sonamura-Boxanagar road and his wife Taslima Khatun was carrying 16 weeks pregnant. When they reached at N.C. Nagar near the house of one Latif Miah, suddenly one Bus bearing registration No.TR07-1236 was rashly and negligently dashed the said motor bike. As a result, the rider and pillion rider, namely, Abdul Karim and Taslima Khatun received grievous injuries and the said motor bike was damaged.

[4] Subsequently, the local people shifted both the injured persons to Sonamura Sub-Divisional Hospital at Melaghar wherefrom both the injured persons were referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala for their better treatment. After reaching AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, the attending doctor declared Abdul Karim dead. It has been submitted that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle being numbered TR07-1236 (Bus). According to the respondent No.1, at the time of accident, the deceased Abdul Karim was serving in a Private Company in Kuwait from 14.01.2014 and his monthly income was Rs.30,000/- per month prior to accident. It is also stated that on 15.04.2018, the deceased came to his house for 6 months leave and on that period i.e. on 14.09.2018, the accident was occurred.

[5] The owner-respondent of the vehicle filed his respective written statement before the learned tribunal denying and disputing all the allegation as made in the claim-petition and also made allegation against each other and stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. As such, if there is any award, that is to be borne by the insurance company. The appellant also contested the case by filing written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition by the claimant- respondents.

[6] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the income as claimed by the claimant-respondent in the claim petition is without any proper documents and identity proof of income which can establish the income of the deceased and without any legal evidence, the tribunal cannot consider the purported monthly income of the claimant-respondent. He has further averred that the claimant-respondent utterly failed to produce any valid document to substantiate the income of the claimant.

[7] Mr. De, leaned counsel has further submitted that considering the monthly income of the claimant-respondent, the tribunal below has whimsically presumed the income of the said deceased as Rs.18,000/- per

month and thereby calculated loss of income at Rs. 34,27,200/- though, the claimant-respondent had not provided any evidence regarding monthly income of the deceased. In the award itself, the learned tribunal had clearly stated that in support of income of the deceased, the claimant had not produced any documents before the tribunal below.

[8] The learned tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission made by the counsel for the parties has observed, inter alia, in the judgment dated 29.07.2021, as under:

"In the result, the petition filed by the claimant-petitioners under Section-166 of the M.V. Act is hereby allowed on contest. The claimant-petitioners are entitled to get in total Rs.34,97,200/- (Rupees thirty four lacs ninety seven thousand two hundred) only for the death of deceased Abdul Karim due to accident which took place on 14.09.2018. The claimant- petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased Abdul Karim, she is exclusively entitled to get an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium. Hence, deducting Rs.40,000/- from the total amount of compensation Rs.34,97,200/-, the actual compensation comes to Rs.34,57,200/- which both the petitioners are entitled to get in equal share as awarded by this Tribunal. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs.8% per annum from the date of filing this claim application i.e. w.e.f. 19.08.2019.

*****"

[9] Being highly aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sepahijala District, Sonamura in T.S. (MAC) 12 of 2019, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.

[10] The only ground which is contended before this Court is that the tribunal has fixed Rs.18,000/- per month towards salary without any basis and in the absence of any proof of income, fixing the notional income of 18,000/- is on the higher side and further learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company has suggested that by following the Minimum Wages Act, around Rs.300/- per day could be reasonable.

[11] Again, this Court has no hesitation to say that even the suggestion made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is only by guess work and the same guess work has also been adopted by the learned tribunal. The

Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in many cases have fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per month and even above in the absence of proof of income. In the present context, I may profitably refer the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murma & Anr, being numbered Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has fixed Rs.25,000/- as the notional income in absence of income proof. So, fixing notional income at Rs.18,000/- or above in this present case, according to this Court, is just and proper.

[12] It is also not in dispute that the deceased person has been survived with his wife and his child. So, the deceased used to maintain himself and the family members. So, in the above scenario, it cannot be said that the deceased person should be having income not less than the amount as has been fixed by the learned tribunal towards his monthly income i.e. Rs.18,000/-.

[13] This is a case where the deceased was working in Kuwait and earning handsome amount and further maintaining his family leading comfortable life. In such a case, it cannot be said that his income would be 300/- per day which is a guess work. Again, in view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to accept the notional income which the learned tribunal has fixed i.e. Rs.18,000/- per month, is absolutely just and reasonable.

[14] Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal as the same is just and proper. As such, the present appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company, is dismissed. Consequently, the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 12 of 2019 needs no interference and thus, affirmed and upheld. Draw the award accordingly. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUDGE

A. Ghosh