JUDGMENT :

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of the learned Member MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 331/2001, dated 07.07.2011.

2. The aforesaid claim case arose out of the petition filed by the petitioner as claimant praying for compensation for the death of his father, Abdul Saktar in a motor vehicle accident on 03.01.1997 involving the vehicle AS 20/0458 owned by the Assam State Transport Corporation. Recapitulating the facts, it can be stated that on the faithful day while Abdul Saktar was proceeding home from Thellamara Centre, at that time the aforesaid vehicle hit him from backside resulting serious injury on his person and while providing treatment he expired in the hospital on 05.01.1997. The petitioner being the son of the deceased person prayed for compensation. The deceased was 55 years at the time of his death and was a businessman having grocery shop with an income of Rs. 3,000 per month.

3. The respondent/ASTC resisted the claim by filing written statement raising usual pleas denying the allegation, submitting inter-alia that claimant also contributed to the said accident and his amount claim is excessive. However, the driver of the vehicle did not contest the case.

4. After examination of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition taking into the age of the victim as 55 years and multiplier 11. By assessing the monthly income as Rs. 3,000 per month as an unskill labour and after deducting the one third of income, annual income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 24,000 and following amount was awarded, holding the same to be just and reasonable.

5. The aforesaid amount was awarded with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order which is to be paid within one month from the date of order.

6. The respondent did not challenged the award given by the learned Tribunal, but the claimant carried the matter before this appellate Court raising the grievances that the amount is not proper which does not taken into account the damage to the vehicle as well as non-pecuniary amount and the amount of interest from the date of order is not proper. Thus it is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to assess the loss of the claimant in proper perspective.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid order suffered from severe infirmities as it does not conform to the standard of assessment of compensation and no proper appreciation of evidence was made. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the aforesaid award is proper and there is no any illegality while making assessment regarding to the age, income and multiplier etc. Regarding rate of interest, it is also stated to be proper.

8. There is no dispute as regard the age and income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has also rightly applied the multiplier in the instant case. The learned counsel referring to the decision of 2000 (3) TAC 184 (Guj.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surojit Panchaji Sodha, sought to contend that the rate of interest should be 15% instead of 6%. However, while saying so, no any reason has been advanced for allowing such interest at enhanced rate.

9. It is pertinent to note that the present case was filed in the year 2001 and after a long pendency the case was finally disposed in the year 2011 and in such given backdrop the claimant will be obviously benefited even with such 6% interest for a long span. The claimant himself took much time in producing his witnesses and as such he is not entitled to more than 6% interest. I am unable to accept the submission of learned