JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 09.12.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 45/2013 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hailakandi, Assam.

3. The basic challenge relates to quantum and the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal or cross-objection against the impugned judgment and there is no dispute as regards the accident, the validity or violation of the insurance policy, validity of driving licence etc. and accordingly, this court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to go the details into the pleading and determination.

4. The case of the claimants/ appellants in a nutshell is that the deceased victim was the son of the claimant No. 1 and brother of the claimant Nos. 2,3 and 4. He was unmarried and was a Govt. employee.

5. The claimants during the proceeding have proved the following facts, which are also not challenged by the Insurance Company:

I. The deceased was a constable under 14 AP IRPN.

II. His gross salary was Rs. 16,456/-.

III. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death and his date of birth is 28.01.1987. He was aged of 25 years 9 moths and 27 days on the date of his death i.e. on 25.11.2012.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the learned counsel for the appellants urges the followings:

I. As the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of his death was proved to be Rs. 16,456/-by way of exhibiting the salary certificate, contents of which was duly proved by the employer, the learned Tribunal below ought not have deducted the amount deposited against the provident fund and group insurance. The salary of the deceased ought to have been determined as Rs. 16,248/- after deduction of professional tax from the gross salary of Rs. 16,456/-.

II. The future prospect has been determined erroneously by the learned Tribunal to be 30% instead of 50% considering the fact that the deceased was aged 28 years and was a Government employee.

III. The learned Tribunal below had committed serious error of law by deducting 30% from the total compensation holding that the deceased had contributed to the accident inasmuch as there is no iota of evidence on record to come into such conclusion.

IV. The claimants are also entitled for compensation against the loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

7. Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error in reducing the total compensation to the extent of 30% considering the contributory negligent on the part of the deceased inasmuch as the claimants in their claim petition pleaded the accident to be result of head on collision between the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and in evidence on affidavit it is stated that the offending vehicle hit the deceased from the behind. The DTO’s report on the offending vehicle, which was exhibited by the claimants goes to show that there are some damages in the back side of the offending vehicle. In the aforesaid backdrop, there is every possibility that the motor cycle wherein the deceased was travelling hit the truck from behind.

8. This court has given anxious consideration to the material available on record. Coming to the monthly income of the deceased, the claimants have established and proved that the gross monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16,456/-and he used to pay professional tax of Rs. 208/-per month and therefore the learned Tribunal below ought to have determined the income of the deceased victim to be Rs. 16,248/-.

9. As the deceased was below 40 years and was a Governmen