IMPORTANT POINT
The court enhanced the compensation for the death in an accident, considering age, income, and future prospects, resulting in a total of Rs.12,74,400/- with interest.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount granted in the final judgment and order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the Member, MACT, Goalpara in MAC Case No.12/2017.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the appellants as claimants filed the claim petition before the Member, MACT Goalpara claiming compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-(Repress nine lakhs) on account of death of their son Pavel Islam in the accident. The accident occurred on 19.5.2006 at about 1 PM on National Highway-37 caused by offending vehicle No.AS-19-A-2082 (Pick up van). As a result of the accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and died on the wayto GMCH, Guwahati when he was taken for better treatment. He was referred by Goalpara Civil hospital. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim petition was contested.

4. On completion of trial, the Tribunal by judgment dated 16.8.2012 awarded compensation amount of Rs.2,85,000/- only in favour of the claimants, and directed the opposite party, New India Assurance Co. Ltd to pay the compensation amount, within 2(two) months from the date of the said order, with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.8.2012, the appellants preferred this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount amongst others on the following ground: -

(i) That the impugned award of Rs.2,85,000/- only with interest at the rate of 8% per annum is inadequate, and the rejection of the rest of the amount claimed by the claimants are contrary to the law.

(ii) That the determination of the quantum of compensation was not made on the correct proposed/standard and the same has been made based on speculation.

(iii) That the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 26 years and the same has not been disputed. However, the learned tribunal has not taken the same into account, and thus, it has affected the multiplier in the quantum.

(iv) That the learned Tribunal is wrong to apply the multiplier filed in respect of the claimant No.1 (father) only, excluding the multiplier 11 in respect of the claimant No.2/mother.

(v) That the claimants have submitted relevant income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal has given only Rs.8000/- pm.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Joginder Singh & Another vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 808; wherein the compensation to be awarded to the claimant has been prescribed under the heads:- (1) Income;(2) Future prospects;(3) deduction towards personal expenses;(4) Total Income;(5) Multiplier; (6) Loss of future income; (7) Loss of consortium to each of the appellants; and (8) Loss of estate. The learned Tribunal in the said judgment failed to include loss of filial consortium; loss of estate; and funeral expenses.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of United India Insurance Company, Limited vs Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780; wherein apart from the grant of compensation, as in the case of Joginder Singh (supra), the multiplier table has also been given. For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, by its judgment dated 16.8.2012.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company fairly submitted that the age of the deceased as 26 years at the time of the accident was not taken into account, and the claimants are entitled for future prospects, at the ra