The main legal point established in the judgment is that family pension cannot be deducted from compensation, and future prospects and dependency deductions should be considered in the calculation of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2013 passed by the ld. Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 466/2010.

3. The present appellant as claimant had filed a claim case vide MAC Case No. 466/2010 before the Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, praying for compensation for causing the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident on 01.02.2010 at Parbahusuba at about 1 a.m. under Tangla P.S. in district of Darrang, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Regd No. AS-13-C-1003 (Tata Sumo). At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 (insurance company). After recording the evidence of the witnesses and considering the other documents available in the record, the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup, delivered the judgment and awarded compensation amounting to Rs.13,88,408/-.

4. Bring highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, as aforesaid, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal in regard to the monthly income of the deceased was based on after deduction of family pension and the learned Tribunal has overlooked the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with.

6. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with future prospect as such, the award passed by the learned Tribunal denying the future prospect in favour of the claimant/appellant is to be considered in this appeal.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case laws-

(i) (1999) (1) SCC 90 (Helen C. Rebello (MRS) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.)

(ii) 2015 0 Supreme(Gau) 969 (Smti. Luna Devi & Anr. v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.)

8. In response, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the complainant is the only dependent of the deceased. As per the case of Sarla Verma vs DTC reported in AIR 2009 (6) SC 121, if the deceased is married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family member exceeds six. When the dependent is just one, deduction of 50% would be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment of MAC Case No. 466/2010.

10. The factum of accident has not been challenged in this case. Two questions to be involved in the appeal is that-

(i) Whether family pension can be deducted from the compensation ?

(ii) Whether the claimant, being the only dependent of the deceased, 50% would be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased ?

11. Coming to the question of deduction of family pension, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically dealt with this question in the case of Halen C. Rebello (MRS) and Ors.(supra). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The legal heirs received family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the fa