JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 03.10.2015, passed in MAC Case No. 1728/2011 by the learned Member of MACT, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The case of the claimants in brief is that on 26.07.2011, when the deceased was proceeding on National Highway No. 52 on foot, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12/H-7524, driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased from back side, causing grievous injuries to the person which resulted in his death later.

4. In the present appeal, neither the accident is disputed nor the liability to pay compensation has been disputed. The only point urged by Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal below while calculating the income of the deceased has not deducted the professional tax of Rs. 208/-from the salary of the deceased and calculated the compensation on the basis of gross salary of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal below has committed serious error of law inasmuch as the tax cannot be added to income. However, Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the claimant respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Tribunal below has already deducted such tax amount, while calculating the income of the deceased. Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed being devoid of any merit, submits the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent.

5. This Court has also perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below and found that the learned Tribunal has duly deducted the professional tax from the salary of the deceased, while calculating the income of the deceased. Such decision is quoted herein below:-

“Regarding income of the deceased, according to claimant No. 1 (PW-1), his salary was Rs. 16,424/- per month at that time. Ex-8 is the income certificate issued by the Commandant, 12th Assam Police Battalion, Gamugurihat, Sonitpur, Govt of Assam, which shows that his gross salary was Rs 16,424/- and there was deduction of Rs. 1000/- towards GPF, Rs.200/- towards GIS and Rs. 208/- on account of professional tax. But GPF & GIS are not deductible and only tax components are to be deducted from the gross salary and after such deduction, i.e. Rs. 208/- as professional tax, his monthly salary comes to Rs. 16.216/-”.

6. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that this present appeal is a misconceived appeal. Though this Court was inclined to impose heavy cost upon the Insurance for filing such appeal, however, Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company prayed that such cost should not be imposed and ascertained that his client satisfied the award within a period 30 days from the date of this order. On such submission of Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel, this Court has retrained itself from imposing to cost, however, it is made clear that the Insurance Company should not file such kind of misconceived appeal in future.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent submits that the claimant is entitled for just compensation as determined in National Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited –VS-Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, that no appeal has been filed by the claimant.

8. A coordinate Bench of this Court in MACApp./202/2012 in its Judgment dated. 04.02.2022, while dealing with an issue whether the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation in absence of a cross appeal or a cross objection, after elaborately discussing different judgment of