IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the compensation amount based on agreed gross pay, emphasizing accurate income assessment for just compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Jahid, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act, 1988’) is filed against the judgment and award dated 09.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No.2973/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation amount of Rs.58,19,206/-(Rupees fifty eight lakh nineteen thousand two hundred six) only, payable by the appellant to the claimants (respondent Nos.1—4 herein), due to the death of Akram Ali with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization.

3. The challenge is essentially to the income of the deceased which has been accepted as Rs.48,577/-per month.

4. The case in brief is that on 10.11.2016, one Akram Ali was going towards his home from Adabari. On his way, he was dashed by one Motorcycle bearing registration No.AS-01-BD-3837, from the back side as a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his person and was admitted at the Railway Hospital, Maligaon and thereafter, shifted to GNRC Hospital, Dispur. However, victim Akram Ali succumbed to his injuries, while he was under treatment at the Hospital. It is contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Motorcycle.

5. An FIR was lodged after the accident, which was registered as the Jalukbari P.S. Case No.963/2016, under Section 279/304(A)/338 of IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years old and he was an employee of N. F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. The claimants/ respondents herein filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, claiming a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-from the appellant/opposite parties, on account of death of Akram Ali.

6. The appellant/opposite parties have filed their written statement and contested the case.

7. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after consideration of the materials/evidence adduced by the parties, has awarded a compensation amount of Rs.58,19,206/-(Rupees fifty eight lakh nineteen thousand two hundred six) only, on account of death of Akram Ali, to be paid to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization.

8. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved on the question of income of the deceased Late Akram Ali to the extent that the learned Tribunal has accepted the gross pay of the deceased as Rs.48,577/-(Rupees forty eight thousand five hundred seventy seven) per month. He submits that as per the Provisional Salary Slip, issued by the Railway Authorities, exhibited as Exhibit No.6, the gross pay is shown to be Rs.74,142/-(Rupees seventy two thousand one hundred forty two) only. As per another Provisional Salary Slip, it shows Rs.48,577/-Rupees forty eight thousand five hundred seventy seven) only, which has been exhibited as Exhibit No.7 and the third Provisional Salary Slip, his gross pay is shown as Rs.40,464/-(Rupees forty thousand four hundred sixty four) only, which has been exhibited as Exhibit No.8.

9. He submits that perusal of the above exhibits show that there are huge difference of gross pay of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking Rs.48,577/-(Rupees forty eight thousand five hundred seventy seven) per month as the gross pay of the deceased. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not deducted any applicable tax from the salary of the deceased, which is mandatory to be deducted and as such, he submits that at best the Exhibit No.8, which shows the gross pay of the deceased as Rs.40,464/-(Rupees forty thousand four hundred sixty four) only, ought to have been taken as gross pay of the deceased. Thereafter, the applica