JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the claimant in MAC Case No. 1438/2014 against the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2018, passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1438/2014 for enhancement of award.

3. The appellant claims enhancement on the ground that the learned Tribunal below has wrongly determined the income of the deceased ignoring the materials available on record inasmuch as the income of the deceased has been determined notionally at Rs. 4,000/-per month. The other grievance is that the learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the settled proposition of law and failed to award just compensation against future prospect and multiplier.

4. In addition to that the learned counsel for the appellant further contends that though no specific ground is taken, however, in view of the change in the settled proposition of law in the shape of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the consortium should also be enhanced and three children’s shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 44,000/-each.

5. The factum of accident, negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and entitlement of compensation are not under any dispute. However, for proper appreciation, the facts are described in a nutshell which are as follows:-

I. It is the case of the claimant No. 1 that while he along with his deceased wife was standing on the left side of the road near Robortola Centre, on National Highway, all of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12/F-4384 (Wagon R), coming from Tezpur side towards Guwahati side in a very high speed, knocked both of them from backside. As a result of which, both of them sustained grievous injuries. Though his wife was taken to the hospital, she succumbed to her injuries.

II. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim by filing written statement and as such the case proceeded ex-parte against them. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No. 1 contested the case by filing written statement and took the usual plea like non acceptance of liability, in case there was any violation of terms and conditions etc.

III. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited certain documents such as charge-sheet, seizure list, medical prescription and cash memo along with post mortem report etc. However, the Insurance Company did not cross examine the said witness. Though the Insurance Company filed written statement, however, they did not lay any witness in proof of their pleas.

IV. After the trial, the learned Tribunal below held that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and out of the said accident, the wife of the claimant expired.

V. While dealing with income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal below held that though the deceased was working as a silk winder and a house-maker looking after entire responsibility of the claimant and the children, however, no documentary evidence regarding occupation and income of the deceased was filed. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal below assumed her income to be Rs. 4000/-per month. However, no amount was awarded for future prospect. Finally the following award was passed:-

6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr Etc.–Vs-Oriental Insura