JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Barooah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 29.04.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 234/2014, awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 13,23,500/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand Five Hundred) only in favour of the respondents/claimants.

3. The factum of accident has not been challenged in this case. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal committed illegality in making statutory deduction of one-fourth from the income of the deceased. In fact, there were three dependants and accordingly, such deduction should have been one-third in place of one-fourth. The father cannot be treated as a dependant. As such, the deduction should be one-third of his income.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to calculate the Award on conventional heads properly, which is liable to be modified.

5. Regarding income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has stated in the Judgment that in absence of cogent evidence on occupation and income of the deceased, notional income of Rs. 4,500/- was accepted as the monthly income of the deceased. However, after hearing learned counsel for both sides, Rs. 6,500/- was taken as monthly income of the deceased.

6. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735, the compensation of the vegetable vendor was determined as Rs. 6,500/- per month. It was held in the said case that the said employee labour in unorganized section, i.e., the claimant/vegetable vendor sustaining disability cannot be expected to produce documents of his monthly income. Considering present state of economy in agricultural products reasonably capable of earning of Rs. 6,500/- per month and compensation was awarded accordingly.

On the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding income of the vegetable vendor, in the case in hand also, the income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 6,500/- per month.

7. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years; an addition of 25%, where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and 10%, where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.

8. In the instant case, as the deceased was 22 years of age when the accident took place, which is not agitated by the appellant/ Insurance Company. Hence, 40% should be added along with his established income of Rs. 6,500/-. As such, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 6500/- + Rs. 2,600/- (40%) = Rs. 9100/-.

9. As the age of the deceased was 22 years at the relevant time of accident, as per the Judgment of Sarala Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier would be 18.

10. In the instant case, the deceased has left behind three dependants. As such, the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as such one-third of income is required to be deducted with the presumption that if the deceased would have been alive, he could have spent two-third for his personal and living expenses.

11. As per the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court