Compensation calculation must reflect accurate age assessment and loss categories, with emphasis on proper income substantiation for just compensation in accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’), Bongaigaon in MAC Case No.04/2010. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 8,21,400/- from Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of the loss of consortium which was summed up to only Rs 10,000/-. It is contended that loss of estate was not awarded and funeral expense was only Rs.5000/-.

2. It is further averred that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased was a carpenter and the notional income was held at a paltry sum of Rs. 3000/-per month, which is much below the average income of a carpenter. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was wrongly calculated. It is contended that the age of the deceased was to be calculated according to the post-mortem report, but the learned Tribunal by exceeding jurisdiction considered the cross-examination of the claimant, PW-1 and had ascertained the age of the deceased to be 39 years without considering the post-mortem report exhibited as Exhibit-5 as well as the claim petition wherein the age of the deceased was clearly reflected as 30 years and the appropriate multiplier would be 16 instead of 15, as taken up by the Tribunal. The appellant is also aggrieved by the omission of future prospect in calculating the loss of dependency, as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 13 SCR 100 that the future prospects has to be enhanced after every three years. No loss of estate was also awarded and the learned Tribunal has ignored that the deceased was a skilled worker.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company has laid stress in his argument that the appellant failed to submit his proof of income and thus, the notional income of Rs. 3000/- was considered to be the monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that no interest could be added on future prospects while paying the compensation. It is further submitted that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a carpenter cannot produce an income certificate cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed as this appeal is bereft of merits.

4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

5. Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the learned Tribunal has erroneously computed the compensation.”

Analysis, reasoning and conclusion.

6. The genesis of the case was that on 12.12.2009, at about 9 a.m., Mayan Ali (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ or the ‘victim’) was proceeding towards Salbari from his residence on his bicycle on the left side of the PWD road, when one bus bearing registration No. AML-559, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased sustained the fatal injuries and died on the spot. The wife of the deceased, Mustt. Rupbhan Beowa (herein after referred to as the ‘claimant’) filed a claim petition and United India Insurance (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurer’ or ‘respondent No.1’), Sri Ma