The court emphasized the principles of determining compensation under the MV Act, 1988, including the assessment of income, disallowance of interest on future prospects, and the application of established case law principles.

1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The insurance company is on appeal under Section 173 of MV Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Member, MACT Dhubri in MAC Case No. 338/2009.

3. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 12.01.2009 when the claimant’s husband (deceased) was travelling in a bus bearing No. AS 17/8048 as a passenger, the said vehicle met with an accident at about 7.45 am at Khoraghat on NH-31 under Bogribari police station. In the said accident, the claimant’s husband sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. It was further contended that at the time of accident the deceased was a businessman earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month and was about 48 years of age.

4. Subsequently, the claimant learnt that another vehicle bearing No. WB-23B-4743 (truck) was also involved in the accident. The claimant then filed a petition before the Tribunal for impleading the owner and the driver of the said vehicle. On receipt of the notices, the opposite party No. 2, 3 and 4 did not appear and contest the case and the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. However, opposite party No. 1 i.e. the insurer of the truck contested the case by filing written statement and denied his liability.

5. In support of the claim, the claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party did not examine any witness. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Member, MACT awarded compensation in favour of the claimant amounting to Rs. 21,29,880/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty) only . Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Member, MACT has made an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 14,829/- in absence of any documentary evidence and thereby awarded huge amount of compensation. It is also submitted that the learned Member MACT ought not to have awarded interest on future prospect as the insurance company cannot pay the advance amount on an uncertain event. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the award of compensation deserves to be modified for the interest of justice.

In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following case laws:

(i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others in MAC Appeal No. 378/2017

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering everything awarded justified compensation which needs no interference by this Court.

In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following case laws:

(i) Prahlad and Others vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2010) 10 SCC 458

(ii) Ravinder Kr. Sarma vs. State of Assam and Others, AIR 1999 SC 3571

8. In the case in hand, the factum of accident has not been challenged. The learned tribunal has determined the income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return of 2008-2009 as the victim died on 12.01.2009.

9. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal and the documents available on the trial court record. I do not find any irregularity on the findings of the trial court regarding income of the deceased. However, there was some irregularity found in the calculation on awarding compensation which is to be corrected as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. The question is whether the interest on future prospect be awardable in the case. In the case of Champabadi Ray (supra) it is elaborately discussed regarding interest on future prospect which is reproduced as follows:

“In the case of Khusbu Chirania @ Kanta Chirania vs. Kamal Kumaar Srivastaba, (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 966 and in the case of Nasima Begum vs. Keramat Ali, (2019) 0 Sup