Point of Law : While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners as well as Mr. R. Goswami and Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 19.01.2018 filed by the appellants/claimants awarding compensation of Rs. 26,62,900/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred) only passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 97/2014.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.04.2014 at about 7.20 A.M, while the husband of the claimant Santosh Kumar Seal (since deceased) was going from Bongaigaon to Guwahati along with a Grade-IV staff of his school in a Mahindra Xylo vehicle bearing no. AS-01/AN-6903 and when they reached at Saljhar, another vehicle bearing no. AS-01/D-6320 (truck) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the vehicle in which the husband of the claimant was travelling, as a result of which, the victim sustained grievous injuries on his person. Though, he was taken to the hospital immediately, but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. After the accident, one case was registered vide Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 48/2014 under Section 279/338/427/304(A) IPC. At the relevant time of the accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

4. The wife of the deceased filed one case before the MACT, Bongaigaon under Section 166 of M.V. Act, praying for compensation on account of death of her husband and after completion of trial, learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in favour of the claimants as aforesaid.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal challenging the award of compensation on the point of wrong appreciation of law.

6. I have heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel of both sides and perused the record of MAC Case No. 97/2014 and the documents available in the record.

7. It appears that the factum of accident has not been disputed in this case. The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon committed an error in calculating the income of the deceased after deduction of tax, inasmuch as, standard deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/-is made from the annual salary, in order to calculate income tax. In determining the dependency in MAC claims, said amount is not at all be deducted and the award as such, requires appropriate enhancement.

9. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has referred one case law-N. Jayasree and Others Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2021 SCC online SC 967.

10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Supreme Court does not appear to have totally ruled out the application of Split Multiplier and therefore, in any given case, if the facts of that case justify the application of split Multiplier the argument justifying the application of Split multiplier can be pressed into service.

11. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws on the point of his argument-

(i) Puttamma Vs. KL Narayana Reddy reported in (2014) ACJ 526,

(ii) K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. Vs. Administrative Officer & Anr. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that where the multiplier applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier.

13. The learned