The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased's actual income and age should be considered for applying the multiplier in motor accident compensation cases, as per the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

ORDER :

1. Both these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 15.03.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2236/2014, the same are taken up for disposal together.

2. While MAC Appeal No. 135/2018 has been preferred by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of the award on various grounds, the MAC Appeal 249/2018 has been preferred by the claimants praying for enhancement of the award dated 15.03.2017.

3. Before going to the respective cases, of the parties before this Court, it would be convenient to narrate the facts of the case which have culminated into the judgment and award dated 15.03.2017.

4. The instant appeal pertains to death in a motor accident claim. The deceased Shri Girindra Rajkhowa was accompanying his friend Sankumoni Goswami in an Innova car which met with an accident on 25.06.2014 at 9.40 pm. In the said accident, Shri Girindra Rajkhowa suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, the claimant who is the mother of the deceased had filed the instant claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was registered as MAC Case No. 2236/2014. The vehicle in question being insured with the United India Insurance Company, the same was made the opposite party No. 2, whereas the owner/driver of the vehicle was made the opposite party no. 1.

5. After exchange of pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased Girindra Rajkhowa died in a vehicular accident occurred on 25.06.2014 at about 11.40 pm, at Khutikatia under Nagaon police station due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of an Innova car baring Engine No. 2KDU512153 and chassis No. MBJIIJV40074693930614?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, to what would be the amount.

6. Two witnesses were produced from the side of the claimant including the claimant herself and various documents were also proved. Neither the Insurance Company, nor the owner choose to adduce any evidence in defense.

7. The claimant as PW-1 narrated that she being the mother of the deceased was present when her son had boarded the vehicle of the opposite party no. 1 on the ill fated day i.e. on 25.06.2014, after which the accident had occurred. She stated that the deceased son was aged 33 years and was earning about Rs. 17,000/- per month. The insurance cover of the vehicle by the Insurance Company was also duly stated. In support of her claim, the claimant had submitted copy of the FIR, Accident Information Report, Post Mortem Report, School Certificate and Income Tax Return. The version of PW-1 was also supported by PW-2 who was a witness to the occurrence.

8. The learned Tribunal after consideration of the matter assumed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that no officials from the Income Tax Department had come to prove the Income Tax Return of the deceased. So far as the multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal took the age of the claimant into consideration and not the age of the deceased. Accordingly, after making the statutory adjustments an award of Rs. 11,90,000/- has been passed.

9. I have heard Shri S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the Insurance company which is the appellant in MAC 135/2018 and respondent in MAC Appeal No. 249/2018. I have heard Shri A.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant who is the respondent in MAC 135/2018 and the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 249/2018. Shri G. Alam, learned counsel is present in both the appeals representing the owner/driver.

10. Let us first deal with the contention of the Insurance Company which has questioned the quantum of the award.

11. At the outset, it is submitted that there is no challenge on the ground of any violation of the policy conditions and the challenge is only limited to the quantum. Shri Sharma, learned senior counsel submits that when the Income Tax Return were held to be not properly proved, the basis