Point of Law : Semi skilled worker can be defined as one who does work generally of defined routine wherein the major judgment is not required.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant. Also heard Mr. A Dutta, learned counsel representing National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 3) and Mr. A K Gupta, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This is an appeal by the claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Golaghat. This present appeal is basically filed for enhancement of the award, in other words, assailing that the learned Tribunal has wrongly determined the quantum of award ignoring certain vital aspects.

3. Neither the Insurance Company nor the driver or owner of the offending vehicle has preferred any appeal against the judgment.

4. Mr. A Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in his usual fairness submits that the Insurance Company is not aggrieved by the judgment and award, however, he will oppose the present appeal for enhancement of the award.

5. Background facts/the accident:

The claimant/appellant, who is wife of the deceased. The husband of the claimant died in the motor vehicular accident in question. The brief case of the claimant is that on 25.11.2011 at 5.30 pm while her husband, Mohan Bora was coming from Chilonijan in his motor cycle bearing registration No. As-05 D-7650 on National highway 39, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. NL/07/2090 (Maruti Esteem) coming from the opposite direction and driven in a rush and negligent manner knocked her husband down with great force in front of their house. As a result of the accident, her husband sustained grievous injury and died on the way to Hospital. The claimant/appellant also pleaded that deceased was a businessman by profession and his business was wholesale and retail sale of pig and vegetable and thereby earned Rs. 12,000/-per month and he was the sole earning member of the family consisting of 9 (nine) dependants including the parents of the deceased. The respondents filed their written statement and took the usual pleas of non-maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. The Insurance took further pleas by denying the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. They also raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the owner, driver and insurer of the motor cycle bearing Registration No. As-05 D-7650.

6. The evidence:

The claimant examined 3 (three) witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in support of their pleadings.

7. The issues:

The learned court below after considering the pleadings framed the following issues :

i) Whether there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle No. NL-07/2090 that caused accident on 25.11.2011 on NH-39 at Kathkotia near Borpathar Police Station?

(ii) Whether Mohan Borah died in result of such accident?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the proper quantum?

(iv) Any other relief?

8. The findings:

After examining the material available on record, pleadings of the parties, their evidences, the learned court below answered all the first three issues in favour of the claimant and taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 awarded the following compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition:

9. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the following counts :

I. The learned Tribunal below erroneously discarded the evidence presented by the appellant and other witnesses in respect of income earned by the deceased inasmuch as t