JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the ld. Member, MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 83/2013.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 13.01.2013, at about 6 p.m., Prodip kr. Logun(deceased) was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AW-6178(ford figo car) from Dimapur to Guwahati along with his friend Shri Jeramiah Kachop and the said vehicle was driven by its owner-cum-driver Shri Pranjal Kachop. On their way, while they reached Salbagan Forest under Dabaka Police Station, the driver of the said vehicle lost his control due to its high speed and dashed against a road side tree with a great force. As a result, Prodip Kr. Logun sustained injuries on his person and died on the spot. The other co-passengers also sustained injuries on their persons and the vehicle was also damaged badly.

4. In connection with the accident, one case was registered vide Dabaka P.S. case No. 17/2013 under Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

5. The claimant, who is the wife of the deceased filed a claim case before the Member, MACT, Golaghat, claiming compensation for death of her husband and after completion of trial, the ld. Member, MACT, Golaghat awarded compensation in favour of the claimant amounting to Rs.63,85,032/-.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal only on quantum of compensation.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per evidence adduced by the claimant before the tribunal exhibiting the Income Tax Return in Form 16, the learned Member ought to have deducted Rs.63,836/-from the annual salary of the deceased but the non-deduction of such substantial amount of Income Tax which is a statutory deduction has resulted in excessive compensation.

8. It is also the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Member, MACT, Golaghat, ought to have appreciated the fact that since less than four persons in the family of the deceased can be considered as dependents upon the deceased then deduction towards personal expenses ought to have considered as one-third instead of as one-fourth. Hence, deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards personal and living expense of the deceased appears to be erroneous.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the ld. Member, MACT came to a finding that an amount of Rs.11,470/-which was a part of the salary, was non-specific and without ascertaining the amount, the awarded compensation is liable to be set aside.

10. It is further contended that the deceased was just 15 days short of 60 years and the learned tribunal ought not to have mechanically allowed the benefit of 15% enhancement on account of future prospect without consideration of the fact that as per the settled law regarding future prospect in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pranay Sethi & Others, future prospect was awarded only on the established income.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that her husband was a salaried person having monthly salary of around Rs.68,000/-. Hence, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in favour of her which needs no interference.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case in hand, the factum of accident has not been challenged. The insurance company has preferred this appeal only on quantum of compensation showing some irregularities in calculation on the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was working as a Manager, C