Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) v. Karna Maya Pradhan

Judgment

#1. The short question that falls for determination in this Appeal is; Whether the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim, at Gangtok (hereinafter, “MACT”), vide the impugned Judgment, in MACT Case No.35 of 2020, dated 30- 10-2021, committed an error in rejecting the Income Certificate, Exhibit 8, issued by the Block Development Officer (for short “BDO”), which quantified the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only, and instead assessed her monthly income as Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only?

#2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants while advancing his arguments, referred to Exhibit 8, the Income Certificate, dated 15-07-2020, issued by the BDO, Block Administrative Centre, Dentam, West Sikkim, certifying that late Bishnu Maya Chettri, daughter of Chandra Bahadur Chettri, had an income of Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) MAC App. No. 01 of 2022 Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) and Others vs. Karna Maya Pradhan and Others 2 only, per month, from agriculture and business. That, despite the Certificate having been issued by the appropriate Authority who was duly empowered, the Learned MACT declined to accept it and proceeded to assess the victim’s monthly income at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, sans evidence. That the deceased owned two beauty parlours, was also an agriculturist and obtaining income from all three sources. Hence, the Judgment and Award of the Learned MACT be set aside and the compensation be computed in terms of the actual income of the deceased as revealed in Exhibit 8.

#3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3, (Insurance Company) contended that there is no error in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Learned MACT as the statutes requires the compensation to be “just” and all powers of the Civil Courts are vested on the Learned MACT to take steps in

this context. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 4 put forth no submissions. 4(i). Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and examined all evidence and documents on record, the facts summarized are that the Claimants (hereinafter “Appellants”) filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the “M.V. Act”), on account of the death of the deceased, Bishnu Maya Chettri, aged about thirty-four years, daughter of Appellants No.1, 2 and allegedly of Appellant No.3 also, and sibling of the Appellant No.4, in a motor vehicle accident on 20-06-2020 at Dhar Gaon, Zoom, Naya Bazaar, West Sikkim. The victim succumbed to her injuries on the spot, the cause of death being the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Mahindra Maxx, bearing registration No.SK-02-J-0348. At MAC App. No. 01 of 2022 Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) and Others vs. Karna Maya Pradhan and Others 3 the time of her demise she had a monthly income of Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only. (ii) The Appellants sought compensation of a sum of Rs.71,02,200/- (Rupees seventy one lakhs, two thousand and two hundred) only. The Learned MACT considered the evidence-on- record and computed the compensation at Rs.34,30,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs and thirty thousand) only, in the impugned Judgment, assessing the monthly income of the victim at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, despite the Income Certificate issued by the BDO placing her monthly income at Rs.50,500/- (Rupees fifty thousand and five hundred) only.

#5. The arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3 with regard to “just compensation” is to say the least, obnoxious. It is but apposite to remark that the compensation which is to be “just compensation” is in terms of Section 168 of the MV Act and not in terms of any power vested on the Learned MACT by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6(i). Now addressing the findings of the Learned MACT with regard to Exhibit 8, the Income Certificate, the Learned MACT is either unaware of the catena of Judgments of this High Court propounding that the BDO is the competent Authority to issue an Income Certificate or has opted to ignore the pronouncements of this Court despite the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding Tribunals ignoring the law declared by the High Court, which shall be discussed later. (ii) In the first instance, it would do well to recapitulate the observations of this High Court on the BDO being the competent Authority to issue an Income Certificate, in Sikkim. MAC App. No. 01 of 2022 Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) and Others vs. Karna Maya Pradhan and Others 4 (iii) In The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Bania and Others1, at Paragraph 17, it was held as follows; “17. In so far as other two grounds are concerned, it may be answered as under: income

17.1 Income certificate issued by the BDO on is a valid and accepted agricultural document in the State of Sikkim and the position is the same as regards validity while being presented to other authorities also. The BDO or the Block Development Officer in a State is a revenue authority and the State Government Rules to issue such certificates, a fact which this Court takes judicial notice of. .......................................................................” is competent under (iv) In Silli Man Subba vs. Man Bahadur Subba2, this Court observed as hereunder; “20.…………………………….……………………………………………… (v) Having said so, I am inclined to set aside the finding on the question in the impugned judgment and hold that the BDO being a public officer duly conferred with the authority to issue income certificate,…………………………………………………….” (v) In The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kavita Rai and Others3, at Paragraph 10, it was held as follows; “10.……………………………………………………………………………. It is not the case of the Appellant that the Block Development Officer is not empowered to issue the Income Certificate of the deceased. He is indeed the concerned authority at the Block Administrative Level to issue such a Certificate. The ratiocinations of this Court referred to supra lend credence to this stand. In the absence of any document to the contrary, Exhibit 14 is accepted as the correct information pertaining deceased.” income of (vi) In Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Babu Singh and Others4, this Court again held as follows; “………………………………………………………………………………….. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite clear that the BDO in the State of Sikkim is competent to issue the Income Certificate, as per Notification dated 03.04.2007. In terms of the powers conferred on him, the Income Certificate (Exhibit-9) is the relevant and relied by the Tribunal to determine the loss of dependency and future prospects due to the death of the deceased. In the said context, it is to observe that if the income certificate issued by a competent authority has been relied by the learned Tribunal accepting 1 2013 ACJ 565 2 (2014) SCC Online Sikk 198 3 SLR (2019) SIKKIM 227 4 SLR (2021) SIKKIM 226 MAC App. No. 01 of 2022 Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) and Others vs. Karna Maya Pradhan and Others 5 the earning of Rs.20,000/-, the onus to disprove it shifts on the insurance company. However, it was the duty of the insurance company to call the BDO in the witness box and put question to him whether he has verified the books of transaction of business recorded in the Books of Account while issuing income certificate. In absence of taking such steps, the argument so advanced by the counsel for the appellant is of no help to him…………………………………..” Despite these pronouncements, the Learned MACT in direct violation of the law laid down by this High Court has given a go by to the Income Certificate, Exhibit 8, issued by no less an Authority than the BDO, which this Court time and again has reiterated is the concerned Authority empowered to issue the Income Certificate. Necessary reference is this context is also made to Notification No.25/Home/2007, dated 03-04-2007, referred to the matter of Shyam Babu Singh (supra) which is extracted herein below; GOVERNMENT GAZETTE “SIKKIM Gangtok Tuesday, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY 17th April, 2007 No.139 HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM No:25/Home/2007 Dated:30/04/2007 N O T I F I C A T I O N In exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State Government hereby appoints the Block Development Officer, Rural Management & Development Department, Government of Sikkim to be the Special Executive Magistrates for the performance of the following specific functions with their respective jurisdiction, namely:- (1) (2) Swearing in or Affirmation of Affidavits under Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Issuance of:- (a) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate. (b) Other Backward Class and Most Backward Class Certificate. (c) Income Certificate. (d) Property Certificate. (e) Employment Card. (f) Married/Unmarried Certificates. (g) Roof Level Certificate (h) No Landed Property Certificate. (i) No Dwelling House Certificate. (j) Landed Property Certificate. Verification of Birth/Death. (3)

#2. In respect of the aforesaid functions, the Block Development Officers shall be subject to the control and directions of the District Magistrates/and other authority as may be specified under law. 3. This notification shall come into force at once. Sd/- (N.D. Chingapa) IAS CHIEF SECRETARY F.NO. GOS/RMDD/07-08/242/11/HQ” (emphasis supplied) MAC App. No. 01 of 2022 Chandra Bahadur Chettri (Thapa) and Others vs. Karna Maya Pradhan and Others 6 The Notification thereby lends succour to the observations of this High Court pertaining to the Authority of the BDO to issue Income Certificate.

#7. In this context, the Learned MACT may educate itself on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta and Another vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta5 which held as observed; including “29……………………………………………………………………………… This raises the question whether an Administrative Tribunal can ignore the law declared by the highest court in the State and initiate proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared. Under Article 215, every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the powers to punish for contempt of itself. Under Article 226, it has a plenary of power to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose to any person or authority, in appropriate cases any Government, within its territorial jurisdiction. Under Article 227 it has jurisdiction over all the courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction. It would be anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that Court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior tribunal that all the tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working : otherwise, administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer. We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding. If that be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings be without themselves would jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) there would be confusion authorities tribunals This ratio was reiterated in Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex- Commissioner of Endowments vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit6 and Hanuman Anandrao Pendam vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary Home Department and Another7.