JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel appears for the respondent No. 1/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017. Mr. S.R. Nawaz, appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017.

The claimant has in turn filed MAC Appeal No. 167/2018. However, for the sake of convenience, the names of the parties, as reflected in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017 are being relied upon, for the disposal of the two appeals.

2. The two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant respectively against the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kokrajhar in MAC Case No. 70/2016, by which compensation of Rs. 17,63,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final payment was paid.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the bachelor son of the claimant died in a motor accident on 02.09.2016, when a Tata Indigo car hit the motor cycle, which the claimant's son was riding. A claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 was filed. The claimant in the claim petition stated that the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of his death, i.e. on 02.09.2016. He was a sub-contractor/manager working for a class-I (A) contractor (PW No.3). Though the claimant (PW-1) along with the contractor (PW-3) gave evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month and awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 17,63,000/- along with 6 % per annum, as indicated above.

4. The counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the compensation amount awarded is challenged on 3 grounds. Firstly, as the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 50 % of the income of the deceased as personal expenses, instead of deducting only 1/3rd of the income. Secondly, as the deceased was not having a permanent job but was working under a private contractor, the learned Tribunal should have calculated 40 % of the income of the deceased for future prospects instead of calculating 50 % of the income of the deceased. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal should not have awarded interest on future prospects.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the appeal filed by the claimant against the impugned judgment is only on the question of income of the deceased. He submits that the deceased was working as a manager under the contractor (PW-3), who was a Class-I(A) contractor under the Govt. of Assam. The contractor did huge govt. contract works with regard to road constructions, buildings etc. As the contractor (PW-3) had given evidence and proved the income certificate issued by him, which showed that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal did not accept the income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- per month and instead fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, without any evidence to support such a finding. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the cross-examination of PW-3 was perfunctory in nature. Learned senior counsel also submits that though the claimant had given the age of the deceased as 19 years at the time of his death in the claim petition, the deceased was 21 years old at the time of his death, as can be seen from the Birth Certificate of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the contractor (PW-3) did not prove the Income Certificate issued by him to the deceased, as no statement of accounts or income tax returns had been furnished b