The central legal point established is the reliance on evidence to determine crucial factors such as age, income, and negligence in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. None appears for the remaining respondents.

2. The appellant before this Court was also the claimant before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 09.12.2013, passed by the Addl. District & Session Judge-cum-Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in MAC Case No. 181 (N)/2012, he has filed the present appeal.

3. Grounds taken in the appeal is that although the appellant/claimant led evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month and also giving private tuition, the learned Tribunal arbitrarily fixed a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of his death and which was supported by his Driving License but the learned Tribunal accepted 48 years as the age of the deceased on the basis of the post mortem report. Further, despite the fact that the appellant through PW-3 was able to establish about the fault on the part of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence. The appellant thus is in appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per exhibit-9, which is the Driving License of the deceased, his date of birth is 24.05.1969. Likewise, as per the Identity Card of the deceased issued by his employer, the date of birth of the deceased was shown as 24.05.1969. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have accepted 48 years as the date of birth of the deceased based on the wrong entry made in the post mortem report. The fact that a wrong entry was made in the post mortem report has also clearly been stated by the appellant herself in her examination-in-chief before the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstance, the age of the deceased on the basis of the Driving License would be 42 years at the relevant time. Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel by referring to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 submits that if the deceased was aged 42 years, the relevant multiplier would be 14 as per the said decision of the Apex Court.

5. Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel further submits that one Md. Abdul Manaf was examined as the PW-3 by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. In his examination-in-chief, he clearly deposed that the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle at moderate speed and coming from Doboka on the left hand side of the four lane road. At that moment, the said witness saw the offending Tata Mobile bearing Regd. No. AS 02E 5667 also coming from Doboka and driven in high speed hit the motor cycle of the deceased from behind. This deposition of PW-3 was neither shaken nor falsified during his cross examination. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that there was contributory negligence is only misconceived. He therefore submits that the appellant is liable to be awarded the entire amount as well as an enhanced of compensation.

6. Mr. R. Dev further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium will also have to be awarded to the claimant/appellant as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, since the deceased was the husband of the appellant. Besides this, the appellant will also be entitled to an addition of 25% on his monthly income towards future prospect as held by the Apex