IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for motor vehicle accidents must be calculated based on the notional income of the deceased as per official wage notifications.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal is against the judgment delivered on 23.12.2019 by the learned MACT Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 978/2016, wherein the learned MAC Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,25,000/- with an interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition i.e. 01.12.2016 till its realization in full in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1-3.

3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that on 12.09.2016, the offending Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-11G-8213 was proceeding from Kalain towards Silchar. The vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed had knocked down the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment as SMCH. The case was registered as Borkhola P.S. Case No. 314/2016 u/s 279/304(A) IPC.

4. The respondents claimant filed the claimed petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 27,84,000. The case of the claimant was that the deceased was 48 years old at the time of his death and being a fish seller earned Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondents Insurance Company by filing their written statement held that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and without any basis.

5. The learned MAC Tribunal had then framed the following issues:

(i) Whether Late Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya, the deceased, died as a result of the motor vehicle accident occurred on 12-09-2016 at about 3:30 p.m. at Borjatrapur near Laskar Bazar under the jurisdiction of Borkhola Police Station?

(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-11G-8213?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, what is just and reasonable compensation and to what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled?

(iv) By whom amongst the O.Ps the same is payable?

6. Both the parties adduced their evidence and on considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. The learned Tribunal however did not accept the income certificate issued y the President of Gaon Panchayat marked as Ext-7 wherein the income of the deceased being a fish seller was shown as Rs. 1500/- per month. The learned Tribunal held that the work of a fish seller must be higher than an unskilled worker and held Rs. 400 as reasonable daily income and calculated the monthly income as 400 x 30 = Rs. 12000/- Thereafter, calculated the award as follows:

Award under Conventional head calculated totaled = Rs. 70,000/- therefore, the total awarded amount = 17,55,000 + 70,000 = Rs. 18,25,000/-

7. The learned MAC Tribunal thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,25,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs twenty five thousand) only with an interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition i.e. 01.12.2016 till its realization in full by the appellant Insurance Company in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1-3.

8. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant appeal he is pressing only on the quantum of the amount awarded by the learned MACT Tribunal and submitted that the learned MAC Tribunal had erred in deciding that the occupation of the deceased, as fish seller, must be higher than an Unskilled worker. And had erred in taking the income in case of a fish seller as Rs. 400/- per day and in taking the monthly income as Rs. 12,000/-.

9. The learned counsel for the appellan