Point of Law: There is no justification for the learned Tribunal to award interest from date of filing the evidence on affidavit.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1 i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. A. Saikia, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4 i.e. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 5. The remaining respondents have not appeared in this case.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No. 2372/2015 awarding a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum calculated on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of evidence-on-affidavit till payment, in favour of the claimants on account of death of deceased Dimbeswar Deka.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier and has also not granted taken into account future prospect as well as the notional income of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation. As such, this appeal has been filed only on quantum and not on the merit of the decision with regard to other issues.

4. The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows. In a motor accident that took place on 24.11.2013, the son of the claimant/appellant No. 1 and the brother of the claimants/appellant Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Dimbeswar Deka had suffered fatal injuries resulting into his death. The accident took place when the deceased Dimbeswar Deka was coming from Jalukbari side towards Basistha in a porter-600 van bearing registration No. AS-01/FC-0605 along with two vegetable bags and being accompanied by other vegetable vendors. When the van reached near Boragaon L.P. School, a truck bearing registration No. NL-01/G-8933, which was coming from the same direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, took a sudden turn towards the left side as a result of which, the driver of the porter-600 van was caught unaware and lost control of the vehicle. The van had hit the truck resulting in a motor accident in which the deceased had received grievous injuries leading to his death.

5. Both the Insurance Companies had contested the case by filing written statements. The fact that the deceased had died in a motor accident that took place on 24.11.2013 involving the two offending vehicles is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the offending truck bearing registration No. NL-01/G-8933 was insured with the respondent No. 1 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) whereas the porter van bearing registration No. AS-01/FC-0605 was insured with the respondent No. 4 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.).

6. After considering the evidence available on record the learned Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the accident took place due to default on the part of both the vehicles and hence, directed that compensation be paid to the claimants which was to be apportioned between the respondent Nos.1 and 4 at the rate of 70% and 30% respectively. The learned Tribunal has also noticed that as per evidence available on record the age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 23 years 10 months 23 days. Although there was no school certificate on record, according to the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Tribunal had treated the deceased to be in the age group of 26 to 30 years and accordingly, applied the multiplier of 17 in purposed observance of the ratio laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The learned Tribunal has also held that although the claimants have not