The court established that the insurance company remains liable for compensation despite the driver’s invalid license, affirming the need to calculate notional income based on minimum wage laws.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, KAMRUT (M) in the Court of Additional District Judge-II cum Member, MACT, Kamrut (M), Gauhati dated 09.10.2018 in MAC Case No. 521 of 2015, wherein the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,28,00/-.

3. Facts of the case in brief is that on 12.06.2014, at about 6:40 pm, while crossing the A.K. Azad Road in front of Bibekananda School, the OP No. 3 driving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-DD-8853 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera on the road, wherein, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to GMC Hospital, Gauhati where the Doctor declared him dead. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was a plumber and his monthly income was Rs. 20,000/-. The claimants being dependent family members of the deceased had filed the Claim Petition praying for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. The OP No. 1/appellant contested the claim by filing their written statement denying the rash and negligent driving and also denied the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings from both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased Mr. Prafulla Behera died in a road traffic accident on 12.06.2014 at A.K. Azad Road, Rehabari in front of Vivekananda School?

(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.AS-10-DD-8853 by the driver of the said vehicle?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation?

(iv) What would be the amount of just compensation and by whom of the O.Ps the same is payable?

Both the parties had adduced their evidence before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal found that the accident which caused the death of Mr. Prafulla Behera (late) was due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle. It was also found that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the OP No. 1/appellant Insurance Company.

4. The learned Tribunal also found that though the claimant has stated that her deceased husband had monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-, his occupation being a plumber, his income is not supported by any other evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had presumed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- by considering the daily wage of a skilled worker to be Rs. 400/-. The learned Tribunal also deducted 1/4th from the income towards personal expenses, considering the number of dependency of the deceased to be filed. The age of the deceased was found to be 45 years. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had calculated the compensation due to the claimant as follows:

The learned Tribunal thus held that the just amount of compensation entitled by the claimants would be Rs. 15,82,000/-along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the amended claim petition till realization, within30 days from ‘today’.

5. The learned Tribunal also held that though the Insurance Company had challenged the driving licence of the driver of the accident vehicle by stating that it was a fake one, and the learned Tribunal held that nowhere in the lette