JUDGMENT
N.S. Singh, J.
1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Award dated 31st March, 1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 101 of 1994. Heard Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel for the Appellant and also Mr. K. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows :
The Appellant as a claim petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with a petition under Section 140 of the said Act for compensation under no fault liability due to death of her husband, namely, late Pradip Singha caused by a motor accident on 13-3-1994 at about 2.30 p.m. at Taibondal Melaghar when he was driving a motor vehicle bearing registration No. TRL-3089 (Truck). The Opposite Party, respondent No. 1, admitted the accident but contended that the deceased died due to his contributory negligence and the deceased was also under the influence of drinks and the vehicle was not completely within his control. According to the Appellant (claimant petitioner) on 13-3-1994 at about 2.30 p.m. while the deceased was going towards Taibaldal at Metaghar by driving the said vehicle (truck) as driver suddenly due to some mechanical troubles the said vehicle fell down in a ditch on the road side and as a result of which the deceased received head injury and other injuries on his person and ultimately died on the spot, After hearing the parlies the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the claimant-petitioner (appellant) as compensation for the death of her husband. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal, the Appellant filed this Appeal.
3. Now this Court is to see and examine as to whether the learned Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Award according to law or not and whether the learned Tribunal had made a reasoned order in respect of the claim of the present Appellant ?
4. According to Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel for the Appellant the order of the learned Tribunal relating to the deduction of 10 percent on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life is not tenable in the eye of law. Supporting the case of the Appellants Sri Choudhury drew my attention to two relevant decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Vijay v. Lakhmi Chand Jain, reported in 1995 ACJ 755 case between Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 1992 ACJ 300 : (AIR 1992 SC 1261) and submitted that in respect of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life any deduction on account of lump sum payment and such uncertainties of life is not permissible. He also further submitted that the deduction of 11) percent for uncertainties of life otherwise than by way of said incident is not permissible in view of the existing facts and circumstances of the instant case. On the other hand Sri Bhattacherjee, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the deduction for uncertainties of life is permissible. In the case between Vijay (supra) the Supreme Court held thus :–
“Quantum of compensation is the next question to be considered. Deceased has been held to be aged about 23 years at the time of his death. This finding calls for no interference. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that P.W. 8 having been examined to state that deceased was paid Rs. 300/-per month, which was not effectively demolished, it should be accepted. We agree with the said submission. Learned counsel for the owner submitted that there would be loss in agricultural income. It is not wholly correct. Supervision by the deceased would be lost and persons giving land to deceased on crop sharing basis may not like to adopt the same with father of the deceased. But taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we agree with the trial Court that annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,.WO/-. Learned counsel for owner submitted that Tribunal has not taken into account the chance of remarriage of the widow, who was aged only 19 years and without any child. Accident is of the year 1976. If additional evidence would have been adduced that widow has in the meantime within these 18 years remarried, we would have considered the weight of submission. There is no such evidence. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that old parents, where average longevity of the family is proved to be around 90 years young widow have lost the deceased who was only son of his parents. Anticipated care, love and affection and protection is lost to the claimants. In such circumstances, there should have been no deduction on account of lump sum payment and future uncertainties. There appears to be force in his contention when deduction is not statutory. We, accordingly direct that claimants shall be entitled to compensation of 1,57,000/- as determined by the Tribunal.”
5. I have perused the available materials on record. On perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award I am of the view that no reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal for reducing by 10 percent on account of deduction of uncertainites of life otherwise than by way of present incident which works out to Rs. 13,000/-. It is well settled that the Tribunal/Court is to determine the fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of any accident or to the dependant of the deceased which must he proportionate to the injuries caused to his or for the cause of his death and the Tribunal/Court cannot go by the ready reckoner. This principle of law finds its place in a case between U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362.
6. As discussed above, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has utterly failed to give cogent reasons for reducing by 10 permit on account of deduction of uncertainties of life of the deceased and as such this relevant finding so far arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not (enable in the eye of law and accordingly I hereby set aside this relevant finding of the learned Tribunal. So far the other findings arrived by the learned Tribunal on the application of multiplier method determining the quantum of compensation does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality in view of Susamma Thoma’s case reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; (AIR 1994 SC 1631) and in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Tilok Chandra (supra).
7. For the aforesaid reasons and observations made above, this Appeal is partly allowed and accordingly the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,57,000/- (Rs. 1,50.000 + 25,000 + 2000) without any deduction for uncertainties of life considering the nature and facts and, circumstances of the case and she also will be entitled to other reliefs of her granted by the learned Tribunal in this case. No costs.