Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Mondol, the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3/claimants and Mr. Azad Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 (i.e. mother and father of the deceased/claimants No.4 & 5). None appears on call for the respondents No.6 & 7 although notices have been duly served on them. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal has been heard on merit.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 01.11.2010 while a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AS-01-H/2771 was proceeding from Lanka to Nagaon in a rash and negligent manner, late Abdus Subur @ Talukdar was hit from behind by the said car. He was taken to the hospital immediately. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 03.11.2010. Claiming compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh, an application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed which was registered as MAC Case No.2215/2010.

3. Six PWs were examined by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the claimants' side. The learned Tribunal accepted that the deceased was aged about 42 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 17,214/- and net salary was Rs. 16,106/- and deducting of his income on account of personal expenses, the claimants No.1 to 4 were held entitled to loss of dependency of Rs. 12,080/- and addition of 30% was made towards future prospects and thus, the actual dependency was held to be Rs. 16,911/-. The applicable multiplier of 14 was adopted and the compensation was assessed as under:

i. Loss of dependency (Rs.2,02,932 x 14) : Rs.28,41,048/-

ii. Funeral expenses : Rs.25,000/-

iii. Loss of consortium : Rs.50,000/-

iv. Loss of love and affection : Rs.50,000/-

v. Loss of estate : Rs.3,000/-

vi. Misc. expenses : Rs.5,000/-

Total : Rs.29,74,048/-

The aforesaid sum was awarded inclusive of "no fault liability" with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till payment.

4. The learned counsels appearing for both the parties are unison in their submissions that the judgment and award was vitiated on account of non-deduction of such income on account of personal expenses from the sum quantified for future prospects. As per the learned counsels, the deduction may be computed as follows: Rs. 4832 X 12 X 14/4 = Rs. 2,02,944/-

Both the parties have submitted that the said sum is required to be deducted from the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that this was one of the ground for challenge of the impugned award in this appeal. The other ground of appeal is that there was no post-mortem of the deceased. In this connection, the learned counsels for both sides have referred to the case of Ramathan and other v. Managing Director, Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, (2003) 10 SCC 53, to project that it was the duty of the opposite parties in the claim petition to bring on record that there was no linkage between the accident and death. In the present case, as the accident had occurred on 01.11.2010 and the victim expired on 03.11.2010, there is definitely gap in linkage between the accident and the death.

5. In that view of the matter, there is no other controversy to be decided in the connected appeal. In this appeal, the only point which survives for decision is whether award was correctly computed by the learned Tribunal. In this connection, as already stated above, there is no dispute at the Bar that the learned Tribunal did not deduct of the future prospect towards personal expenses of the deceased. Such deduction comes to Rs. 2,02,944/-, which is required to be deducted from the awarded sum.

6. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had erred on facts and in law for not deducting the aforesaid amount quantified at Rs. 2,02,944/- on account of deduction for personal expenses as indicated above. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 have no objection, rather, they both admit that the said