JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr P Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short, the “MV Act”), against the Judgment and Award dated 27.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No. 69 of 2014 (D), awarding Rs. 10,25,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) Only in favour of the claimant/respondent.

3. The factum of accident has not been challenged in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the deceased was a law student and although she was stated to be working in M/s Trident Infra-projects Private Ltd., drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/-per month but her income was not proved but as per settled provision of law, the provision for enhancement of the income for future prospect is only for salaried persons, fixed income or self employed. In the present case, the salary of the deceased was not proved and an income of Rs. 5,000/-was presumed by the learned Member MACT, while making assessment of compensation and as such, the claimant is not entitled to the benefit of addition of 50% of the notional income to the income of the deceased under the head of future prospect.

4. It is also submitted that the error committed by the learned Member, MACT, has resulted in over compensation, which would militate against the concept of ‘just compensation’ as envisaged in the MV Act.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has cited one caselaw, Oriental Insurance Company Limited –vs-Meena Varial & Ors.; reported in (2007) Vol 5 SCC 428.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has filed a cross objection, under Order XLI, Rule-22 of CPC, praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has argued that the deceased was studying LLB at Gauhati University and she could have a promising career, had she been alive. The daughter of the claimant used to earn Rs. 10,000/-by doing a part time job in a private firm, namely, M/s Trident Infraprojects Private Ltd. at Guwahati at the time of her death and one salary certificate of the deceased was exhibited vide Exhibit-5, but the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the instant case and awarded compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 5,000/-which is lower in side.

7. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken up the multiplier as 15 instead of 18 for the age group of 15 to 25 years. As the deceased was 23 years of age, the multiplier should be 18 and not 15. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has relied on the case law of Sarala Verma –Vs- DTC; reported in (2009) Vol.-6 SCC 121.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of MAC Case No. 69/2014 and the documents available in the record.

9. It is seen that both the parties have filed the present appeal as well as cross objection on quantum of compensation.

10. Regarding income of the deceased, as per claim petition, the deceased was working in M/S Computer Heart, at Tezpur, wherein she was working as a Receptionist since Feb 2012 to July 2013 and her monthly salary was Rs. 4,500/-and thereafter, she had joined M/s Trident Infraprojects Private Ltd. at Guwahati, wherein she used to work as an Front Office Assistant from October 2013 till her death and earning Rs. 10,000/-per month. In support of the fact, the claimant has submitted one certificate from M/S Computer Heart, vide Exhibit-5, certified by the proprietor, that the deceased Sikha Moni Baruah had been working in M/s Computer Heart, Aziz Market, Tezpur as a rec