JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By the impugned award, dated 3.3.2003, passed in MAC Case No. 218 of 2000, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, has directed the insurer-respondent to pay, in all, Rs. 1,40,000, as compensation to the claimant-appellant.
2. I have heard Mr. R.K. Agarwalla, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant, and Mr. S Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer-respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the owner-respondent at the time of hearing of this appeal.
3. The claimant’s case, briefly stated, is thus: On 30-10-2000, at about 5:30 am, the claimant’s son, Dilip Sarkar (since deceased), went out of the house to the road for the purpose of morning walk and at that point of time, a bus, bearing registration No. ASG-3778, came from the direction of Dubri and while proceeding towards Goalpara, the bus knocked down the claimant’s said son. Though the claimant’s injured son was taken to the Civil Hospital, Dhubri, he succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. The claimant sought for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 as compensation, but the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,40,000, as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, so awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
4. While considering the present appeal, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has treated the annual income of the said deceased at Rs. 15,000 on the ground that the claimant could produce no documentary evidence to show the actual income of the deceased. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the notional income of a deceased victim is treated at Rs. 15,000 if the victim, who dies, is not proved to have been earning. In a case, where the evidence exists to show that the victim used to earn, the Tribunal has a duty to ascertain, by applying, if necessary, some kind of reasonable guess work as to what the income of the victim, at the time of the accident, was.
5. Bearing in mind the principle indicated hereinabove, when I turn to the factual matrix of this case, I notice that in the case at hand, the claimant’s evidence is that her said son used to deal in bricks, stones, sand etc. and his monthly income was about Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000. The fact that the said deceased was in the business of bricks, stones, sand, etc., was not in dispute in the claim proceeding. It is also in the evidence of the claimant that their family consisted of the said deceased, who was unmarried, and two unmarried daughters of the claimant. These facts too were not in dispute. What was, disputed was that the daughters of the claimant did not earn anything. There was, however, no evidence on record to show that the claimant’s daughters had been, earning. Situated, thus, it was clear that on the earnings of the said deceased, his entire family, which consisted of his mother and two unmarried sisters, used to survive. The impression that the entire family of the said deceased was dependant on the earnings of the deceased gets re-in-forced from the evidence of the claimant, for, it is in the evidence of the claimant that since after the said accident, the claimant has started working, at the Civil Hospital, in order to maintain her family, then as many as four persons, including the said deceased, were dependant on the earnings of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought to have held that the said deceased used to earn, at least, Rs. 3,000 per month. So assessed, the annual income of the said deceased ought to have been held to be Rs. 36,000. As the deceased was an unmarried person and he would have grown his own family, 23rd of his annual income could have been deducted as the amount, which the deceased would have, in course of time, spent himself, on his wife and children. In consequence thereof, 173rd of the earnings of the said deceased, i.e., a sum of Rs. 12,000 would have continued to come to the hands of the claimant, i.e., the mother of the said deceased.
6. In view of the fact that that claimant’s age is 45 years, the learned Tribunal could have used 15 as the multiplier and if 15 is applied as multiplier, the total amount compensation works out to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000. To this amount of Rs. 1,80,000, a sum of Rs. 10,000 needs to be added as funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total amount of compensation, therefore, comes to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000.
7. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest with effect from the date of making of the award. What is, however, important to note in this regard, is that the claimant made the application seeking compensation on 20.12.2000 and the respondents contested the claim proceeding by filing the written statement. It was in consequence of the fact that the respondents contested the claim proceeding, that the disposal of the claim proceeding got delayed. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest with effect from the date of making of the claim application.
8. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 9 per cent per annum. The rate of interest, so imposed on the insurer, has not been challanged by the insurer-respondents by preferring appeal.
9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I hold that the claimant-applicant is entitled to receive, in all, Rs. 1,90,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of making of the claim application, i.e., 20.12.2000, until realization of the entire awarded amount. While calculating the amount of interest, the amount, which has already been paid by the insurer-respondent, shall be deducted.
10. The amount awarded in favour of the claimant shall be paid to the claimant within a period of two months from today.
11. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
12. Send back the LCR.