The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct computation of compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act, highlighting the permissible income limit, reduction for fatal accidents, and the choice of multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.D. Purakayatha, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 226/2010 awarding the claimants a sum of Rs. 9,38,560/- along with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation for the death of Moin Mia, who is the husband of the first claimant, son of the second and third claimant, father of the claimant Nos. 4, 6 and 8 and also brother of the claimant Nos. 5 and 7.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 27.02.2009, the deceased being the driver of an Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. AS-01 J-5397 insured with the appellant herein was proceeding from Guwahati toward Tripura. As the tanker reached Hilala Railway Gate No. NH 44, it dashed against a tree and fell into a pond causing grievous injury on the person of the deceased. While he was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, he succumbed to injuries. As a result, the claimants filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. The deceased was said to have earned a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as driver of the Oil Tanker and therefore, a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- was claimed as compensation.

4. The appellant as opposite party No. 2 and the owner of the vehicle as opposite party No. 1 contested the claim by filing their written statement separately. The owner of the vehicle while denying the claim contended that the vehicle was insured validly with the opposite party No. 2 (the appellant herein) and therefore, in the event of any liability being found, the owner will be liable to indemnify the insurer. Similarly, the OP No. 2 i.e. the instant appellant denied its liability to pay any compensation and contended that there was no cause of action and the claim was bad for mis-joinder of necessary party, suppression of material facts and that the amount claimed was highly excessive. In support of their claim, the claimants examined claimant No. 1 as the sole claimant witness while the OP did not examine any witness. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the claim by awarding compensation to the claimants as already mentioned hereinabove.

5. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim was filed by the claimant under Section 163-A of the MV Act but the learned Tribunal proceeded to consider and dispose of the claim as a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. While doing so, the Tribunal computed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6240/- by taking into consideration the daily wage earned by a skilled worker in terms of the Notification No. GLR. 503/81/392 dated 15.03.2012, issued by the Government of Assam in the Labour and Employment Department. He submits that as per the 2nd Schedule of the MV Act, the highest annual income slab is Rs. 40,000/- and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in computing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6240/- as it exceeded the annual income of Rs. 40,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that once a claim is made under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the amount of compensation has to be computed as per the formula given in the 2nd Schedule and not otherwise. As such, the amount of compensation given by the Tribunal for the conventional heads totaling to Rs. 40,000/- is misconceived and also on the higher side. As such, the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal may be interfered with by this Court.

6. Mr. S.D. Purakayatha, the learned counsel on the other hand submits that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. But however, the Tribunal only accepted a sum of Rs. 6240/- as his monthly income in view of the notification of the Labour and Employment Department. He submits that in addition to the computation of