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 :

Heard Mr. Nur Mohammad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K.U. Ahmed and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsels representing the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Award dated 29.08.2019 passed by the MACT, Sankardeve Nagar, Hojai in MAC Case No. 237/2010.

3. The present appellant is aggrieved on 2(two) issues. The first is that the tribunal while awarding compensation allowed an interest from the date of the judgment. The second issue is that in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was rendered in National Insurance Com. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (4) TAC 673 (S.C.), the tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of future prospects.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Goswami submitted that so far as the question regarding award of interest is concerned, the tribunal correctly directed that the interest should be calculated from the date of the judgment. Mr. Goswami has submitted that only for that acts of the appellant the delay took place in fact on another occasion, prior to filing of the present appeal, the appellant had approached this Court in the year 2017. That appeal was disposed of on 29.08.2019. Mr. Goswami, therefore, submits that at this stage the insurance company should not be penalized. According to Mr. Goswami, the claim case was filed in the year 2010 and if the insurance company directed to pay @ 6% from the year 2010, it will cause loss of public money.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

6. At this stage paragraph 61(iii) of Pranay Sethi(supra) is relevant. It means as-

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis we proceed to record our conclusion:

(iii) 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. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less.”

7. The deceased was a government servant at the time of his death and his monthly income is Rs.16,615/-. He was 48 years old at that time. The tribunal calculated the compensation in the following manner:-

8. In view of Pranay Sethi’s (supra) decision, the tribunal should have added 30% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects. The calculation made by the tribunal deserves to be modified to that effect.

9. If 30% of the income is added to the actual income of the deceased the calculation shall be like this-

10. So far as the interest part is concerned, this Court has decided to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel Mr. Goswami. The claim was filed in the year 2010. The subsequent litigation before this Court ended in the month of August, 2019. So for the time taken in litigations, the insurance company is not responsible because the present appellant had approached this Court.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to agree with the appellant. The interest upon the award shall be calculated from the date of the judgment.

12. The appeal is allowed and the judgment dat