JUDGMENT

Date : 20-04-2018 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. P. Bhattacharyya for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Unsatisfied with the award made by the MACT, Sivasagar in MAC Case No. 110/2005, the claimants have filed the instant appeal praying for enhancement of the award.

3. One Bina Chetia Changmai (since deceased) died in a motor vehicular accident on 04/10/2005 involving vehicle No. AS-06/E-2434 and AS-03/C-4991 owned by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively and insured with respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The legal representatives of the deceased made an application before the MACT, Sivasagar seeking compensation and the learned tribunal by the impugned award granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 57,000/- in favour of the claimants with 6 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

4. Aggrieved, the claimants filed the instant appeal.

5. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta submitted that in the instant case, the deceased left behind two minor children and her husband and the claim petition was filed by the husband. However, during evidence, it was brought on record, that the victim also left two minor children. However, learned tribunal granted a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the observation that the claimant husband was not dependent on the victim and failed to take note of the fact that the victim also left behind two minor children. The insurer of both the vehicles were saddled with the responsibility to pay the award in equal share. The factum of death of the victim and involvement of the vehicles insured with the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were not in dispute admitted.

6. Only question raised in the instant case is that learned tribunal fell in error while fixing a lumpsum compensation ignoring the fact that in the claim petition itself, the name of the legal heirs of the dependent, being the minor children of the victim, were mentioned. However, those pleadings and materials brought on record escape the notice of the tribunal and the tribunal hurriedly made an award for a lump-sum amount, as indicated above. Since the victim left behind two minor children, besides, the husband, they are certainly entitled to compensation as per law.

7. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and compensation awarded is required to be re-assessed on the basis of dependency and income. Both the parties are in agreement that income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month on the basis of evidence on record and deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased shall be 1/3rd. The age of the deceased being 28 years is also not in dispute, and as such, appropriate multiplier to be applied shall be 17. Accordingly, the compensation, to which the claimants will be entitled is assessed as under :-

Loss of dependency = (Rs. 3000-1/3) = Rs. 2000x 12x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/-

For Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000/- For Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/- For Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------- Total = Rs. 4,78,000/-

8. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition.

9. The appeal is according allowed. Both the insurance companies, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall satisfy the award of Rs. 4,78,000/- within six weeks by depositing the same with the Registry of this Court with 6 % interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The amount already paid, shall be adjusted against the above mentioned awarded amount. The Registry shall ensure that 35 % of the awarded amount including interest is fixed deposited in a nationalized bank in the name of claimant Kushal Changmai (son of the deceased) for a period of three years and 35% of the above amount including interest shall be fixed deposited in a nationalized bank in the name of Bihu Changmai (son of the deceased) till he attains majority.

10. MAC App