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. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and none appears for the other respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle bearing no. AS-04/E-3239 (Mini Truck) challenging the award of compensation on the head of deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased, against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sivasagar in MAC case no. 17/2008.

3. There is no dispute with regard to accident and the liability fixed by the Tribunal. It is only on the submission that the Tribunal was not following the law while deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased on calculating award. No other point has been raised in the appeal. As such, the point to be decided in this appeal that what will be the deduction for personal and living expenses while mother is the sole survivor.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that while assessing compensation for death of a person where the claimant is the mother, 50% of the income of the deceased is deducted for his personal and living expenses. The instant case being similar to the case for compensation for the death of a bachelor because the mother is the only claimant, the learned member ought not to have deviated from the principle applicable for bachelors as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The erroneous assessment has resulted in overcompensation to the respondent no.1/claimant.

5. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court and also perused the documents available in the record.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in SLP (Civl) No. 25590 of 2014 has rendered the guidelines on the issue of just compensation which reads as follows:-

Section-168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”.

7. In the said case, it was also held that three aspects need to be clarified pertaining to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of Sarla Verma lays down:-

30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows