Compensation assessment must follow principles of fairness and equity, taking into account the date of the accident and dependents' status.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 4th Court. Krishnagar, Nadia in MAC Case No. 211 of 2007.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 9.2.2007 at about 2030 hrs while deceased after meeting his mother was returning towards his own residence by his own cycle through NH 34 near Begopara in front of the house of Peter Mallick, one offending vehicle bearing No. WGE 2377 (truck) coming from Kolkata side running at a very high and excessive speed proceeding towards the same direction lost control and knocked down the deceased resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased.

3. The claimants being the widow, son, minor daughter and the mother of the deceased preferred an application under S.166 of the MV Act before the learned Tribunal for getting compensation against the insurance company on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured under the policy of insurance company at the time of accident.

4. The claim was contested by the insurance company by filing written statement.

5. After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 39,78,040 towards compensation and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants / appellants. After service of notice of appeal, the insurance company appeared and filed one cross - appeal by the leave of this court.

7. It is further fact of the case that the award passed by the learned Tribunal was satisfied by the insurance company prior to filing cross - appeal.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appeal was preferred only on the point of quantum. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation by fixing the future prospects to the tune of 30 per cent adding to the established income of the deceased but addition of future prospects was not made at the time of calculation. He submits that there was arithmetical error in calculating the compensation. So, the future prospects must be allowed to be added in this case. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. He argued that there were four claimants at the time of filing of the instant claim application. They are widow, son of the deceased, minor daughter of the deceased and the mother of the deceased. The mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim application. The present appellants / claimants are substituted at the place of the mother of the deceased as there are no other legal heirs left.

9. Mr. Benerjee argued that personal and living expenses of the deceased is to be calculated according to the number of claimants. In this case, the number of claimants is four, so, the deduction towards personal expenses according to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), would be 1/4th. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed error by deducting 1/3rd on the ground that only three dependants are left at the time of awarding the compensation. Mr. Benerjee further argued that the principle to be looked into in this case is that the award is to be calculated on the date of death of the deceased not on the date of passing the judgment. He further argued that the parameters of awarding the compensation as per view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court according to the other guideline is from the date of death of th