The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of fault liability, income assessment, age assessment, and compensation calculation under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166, and the interpretation of relevant case laws in determining the entitlement of claimants to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Phoseko Pfotte, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and Mr. Ms. Khriezo Kirha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 & 6.

2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant –New India Assurance Company Limited has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order, dated 31.07.2019, passed by the learned member, Motor Accident Claims Tirbunal, Mokokchung, Nagaland in MAC Case No.16/2018.

3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2019, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,87,500/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of this revision petition, are briefly stated as under:-

“On 23.05.2018, at about 12 noon, while Idrish Ali, since deceased, was returning Lakhimpur and reached Khelmati Sriram Hotel, then one vehicle bearing registration No. AS-07/C-4173(Recovery Van), driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner, knocked him down. As a result, Idrish Ali sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was taken to Lakhimpur Civil Hospital, from where he was referred to Guwahati, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way. Thereafter, the claimants have filed one claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tirbunal, Mokokchung, Nagaland and the learned Tribunal has registered a case, being MACT Case No. 16/2018, and thereafter issued notice to the respondents, the appellant and the owner of the vehicle, and accordingly, they have entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and thereafter, hearing both the parties the learned Tribunal has ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8,87,500/- along with the interest of 9% per annum, to the claimants, vide the impugned judgment and award, dated 31.07.2019, from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 29.06.2018.”

5. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal contending to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2019, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mokokchung, Nagaland in MAC Case No.16/2018, and to allow the appeal on the following grounds:-

[i] That, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award without considering the basic requirement of Motor Vehicle Act as prescribed under section 166 of the said Act pertaining to the fault liability;

[ii] That, the learned Tribunal had failed to take into account that the claimants have failed to adduce any cogent evidence in respect of income of the deceased;

[iii] That, the learned Tribunal also failed to take into account that the claimant No.1 is 35 years old and that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased;

[iv] That, the learned Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that the claimants have failed to establish the fault of the driver and as such determining the quantum of compensation is arbitrary and liable to be quashed;

[v] That, the learned Tribunal had miscalculate the age of the deceased as 62 years, which ought to have been 69 years and on that count the multiplier applied ought to have been 5, instead of 7;

[vi] That, the learned Tribunal has taken consideration of the age of the deceased while selecting the multiplier 16, but it ought to have been 15; and

[vii] That, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/ under the head of pain and suffering which is not contemplated under the Act except, however, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses;

[viii] That, learned Tribunal had awarded interest @ Rs.9% per annum, which is clear violation of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma vs. State of Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121;

6. Mr. Pfotte, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds mentioned herein above and relying upon the aforementioned case law, submits that the impugned ju