JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. I.

A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.

2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 25.10.2016, passed in MAC Case No. 587/2011 by the learned Member of MACT, No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

3. The claimant’s case in brief is that while deceased victim Dilip Choudhary was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-01-AM-7274, from Khanapara side towards CRPF Group Centre, Amerigog, a Truck bearing registration No. AS-01-BC-2943 being driven in a very rash and negligent manner knocked him down from back side at about 07:30 PM, near Ganesh Mandir leading to his death. Accordingly, the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition.

4. The owner and driver of the truck filed their joint written statement and denied all the averments made in the claim petition. They further claimed that at the time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with opposite party No. 3/present appellant and that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle with a valid driving license.

5. The insurance company of the offending truck admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of the truck, however, refuted the pleading made in the claim petition.

6. The claimant examined three witnesses and exhibited certain documents to prove their case. However, the opposite party in the claim petition had not examined any witnesses.

7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal below came to the following findings:-

I. The fact of death in the road traffic accident was duly proved through Police Report and Post Mortem Report.

II. The road traffic accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in which Dilip Choudhury died.

III. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years which was proved through PW-3.

IV. On the date of the occurrence, the deceased was serving as Constable of CRPF and his last gross pay was Rs. 18,332/-and an amount of Rs. 1440/-was deducted for income tax. Accordingly, his monthly income was held to be Rs. 16,892/-.

V. The deceased left behind his wife, mother and a disabled dependent brother. Therefore, 1/3rd is required to be deducted.

VI. The deceased was permanent Govt. employee and was aged below 40 years. Therefore, future prospect should be 50% of the net salary. Loss of consortium was determined @ Rs. 1,00,000/-and funeral & Travelling expenses was determined @ Rs. 25,000/-.

8. The appellant/insurance company as urged by Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel has challenged the impugned judgment on the following counts:-

I. The claimant wife shall earn a monthly income of Rs. 22,318/-as income from interest on the principal amount awarded and accordingly it is an extravagant bonaza inasmuch as she can run her whole of life only on income from interest and principal amount shall remain intact.

II. The grant of addition of 50% towards future prospect is also in higher side inasmuch such large amount of money can easily be invested in banks yielding at least 7.5% more interest. Therefore, such award is also bonaza to the claimant.

III. Thus the compensation is high and disproportionate inasmuch as such extravagant bonaza in the name of compensation will remain intact till eternity, even after the lifetime of the dependents.

IV. The compensation against loss of consortium and funeral expenses are on higher side in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited–Vs-Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

9. Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for th