IMPORTANT POINT
Proper consideration of the deceased's qualifications, experience, and potential future income is essential in determining compensation for motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1/ National Insurance Company Limited.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari in MAC case no. 56 (Death)/2016 whereby, the learned Member has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs 6,48,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs forty eight thousand) only to the appellant/claimant, after considering the basis of their claim and the evidence produced in support of their respective claims.

3. Being aggrieved by the quantum and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been basically filed for enhancement of the said award assailing that the learned Tribunal has wrongly determined the quantum of award ignoring certain vital aspects.

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 20.06.2016 at about 11:25 AM while the claimant’s son, Washim Akram was proceeding from Barama toward Nalbari by driving a Maruti Swift vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01 BQ/9735, and when the said vehicle reached at Dipta Suradi on National Highway 31, the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AS-01-BB/8543, coming from the opposite direction being driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Maruti Swift vehicle which was driven by the deceased. According to the claimant, the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo came driving in the wrong lane in total violation of the traffic rules.

5. However, in the instant appeal, the factum of incident has not been challenged, what is challenged in this appeal is the quantum of the award which according to the appellant had wrongly been determined in the lower side, ignoring certain vital aspects, like; the experience and the degree certificates of the deceased, and not being satisfied with the amount of the award granted by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has approached this Court claiming as follows:

(i) That the deceased had completed the course of Technical Engineering which is equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering and based on the Educational Qualification, it can be clearly ascertained that the deceased falls under the category of skilled worker. And as such, while considering the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have considered the income of the deceased to be that of a skilled worker, and should have taken his monthly income to be more than Rs. 15,000/- and not as that of an unskilled worker.

(ii) That the deceased had also successfully completed his Post Graduate Diploma in Software Application (PGDSA), for 12 months duration in the year 2010 and at the time of incident, he had a job under private firm earning more than 20,000/per month. And further that during his lifetime, the deceased had applied and appeared for written examination held on 26.08.2015, for the post of Junior Engineer in NFR (North Eastern Frontier Railway) and he was selected for appointment to the said post, however, before he could get an appointment order and join the said service, the deceased died in the said accident. This aspect of the claim of the appellant was not considered by the learned Tribunal and wrongly fixed a notional income of the deceased at Rs.4000/ per month without even categorizing him under any labours.

(iii) That the learned Tribunal committed error regarding calculation of future prospect of deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased.

(iv) That except for the compensation awarded for loss of income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the compensation as claimed under different heads.

6. It is submitted that while dealing with the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal below has not discussed anything as to why the case of deceased has been considered at the notional income of Rs. 4000/- per month. It is well settled that such conclusion must be suppor