The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, considering factors such as the deceased's income, multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. Also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. Mac. Appeal No. 3/2018 has been filed by the appellants/claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation amount given by the MACT, Aizawl vide Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 47/2016.

MAC. Appeal No. 12/2019 is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the same impugned Judgment & Award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT No. 47/2016.

As such, these 2 (two) appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.05.2016, a motor vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration No. MZ-01-J-8927 belonging to the instant Respondent No. 8 and driven by one Lalrintluanga, S/o Lalnghilhlova of Ramhlun North, Aizawl, Mizoram, met with an accident at Chiehruphi village, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya while proceeding towards Guwahati from Aizawl. The accident resulted in the death of two (2) persons out of the nine (9) passengers, which included the husband/father of the instant Respondents No. 1-7/Claimants. The said accident vehicle was validly insured with the instant Appellant at the time of the accident. The Respondent No. 1-7/Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation before the MACT, Aizawl.

After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the MACT, Aizawl passed its Judgment & Award dated 14.12.2017 in MACT Case No. 47 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the respondent Nos. 1-7/Claimants compensation amounting to Rs. 10,43,920/- (Rupees ten lakhs forty three thousand nine hundred twenty only) with interest @ 7% calculated from the date of filing i.e., 17.11.2016, till final payment.

4. The appellants/claimants have challenged the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded was too meager. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was running a garment shop, earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. Even though there was no rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the claimants to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from his garment shop, the learned Tribunal awarded only the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as the income of the deceased. He submits that the income of the deceased has to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per month. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the below noted judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, which are (i) Smt. Lakhi Das and 6 Others vs. Raju Sarmah and Another,2014 3 TAC 941(Gau), (ii) RokeyaBewa & Ors. Vs. Ranu Das & Ors., (2018) 3 GauLT 279 and (iii) Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236.

5. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that appellants/claimants are not entitled to any compensation, inasmuch as, rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle has not been proved by the appellants/claimants, even though the claim petition had been filed under Section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988. Besides the above, the other grounds of appeal by the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal took the multiplier of 18, instead of 14, while computing the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants, though the deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death. He also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects at the rate of 30% of the income, though the same should have been 25%, as the deceased was selfemployed. He also submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned Trial Court could not have awarded compensation towards "loss of love and affection" and due to "loss of expec