The court affirmed that compensation for a non-earning spouse must be calculated as a third of the earning spouse’s income, despite the absence of a vehicle permit not exempting insurance liabilities.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.285/2020 and Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1- 4 and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the respondent No.5.

2. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.332/2021, Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1- 4 and Mr. S. Islam for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent No. 6.

3. In these appeals, being MAC Appeal No.285/2020, and MAC Appeal No.332/2021, the judgment and award, dated 23.09.2019, passed in MAC Case No.46/2019, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Barpeta, is being challenged.

4. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 23.09.2019, passed in MAC Case No.46/2019, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Barpeta (Tribunal hereinafter) had allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by one Hitesh Das and three others, and directed the O.P. No.3- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs. 26,80,667/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven) being the just compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition until its realization subject to the condition that the O.P. No.3- HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd. shall be at liberty to recover the entire amount paid to the claimants from the O.P. No.1 namely, Sri Gunajit Nath.

5. The parties involved in both these petitions are same. And the engaged counsel are also the same. The questions involved and the subject matter of challenge are also the same. Therefore, as agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is being proposed to dispose of both the appeals, by this common judgment and order.

The Background Facts:-

6. The back grounds facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, are briefly stated as under:-

“On 30.01.2019, in the morning, at about 11:00 Α.Μ, Smti. Gitanjali Das, since deceased, was proceeding towards Barpeta, from Barpeta Road, along with one Jitendra Barman in his Maruti car, bearing registration No. AS-15B- 8686, and when the said car reached Kadamguri one Dumper (10 wheeler) moving in from the opposite direction (from the side of Barpeta), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Maruti car in which the deceased was travelling. Consequently, Gitanjali Das and the driver cum owner of the Maruti car sustained serious injuries on their person and they succumbed to such injuries on the spot.

Thereafter, Shri Hitesh Das and three others had filed one claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending Tipper/Dumper (10 wheeler) by arraying them as opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) along with interest thereon.

All the opposite parties have entered appearances and contested the case by filing their respective written statements.

O.P. Nos.1 & 2 {owner and driver of the offending Tipper/Dumper (10 wheeler)} in their joint written statement, had denied their fault in the alleged accident and