JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The quantum of compensation as awarded to the claimants/appellants herein by the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned 2^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division( in short, “2 ^nd MACT”) Sambalpur in MACA No. 04 of 2013 is under challenge in this appeal U/S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”).

2. Briefly stated, the appellants who are the claimants-cum-legal representative of one Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as, “the deceased”) have filed an application U/S. 166 of the MV Act for compensation towards death of their sole bread earner-cum-deceased who on the fateful day on 24.11.2011 at about 6.20PM while returning from Bareipali, Sambalpur towards Remed side by riding his motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OR-15Q-5425 on NH-6, near Gopalpali Chowk in front of Hyundai show room, was suddenly dashed from behind by a bus bearing registration number OR-15R-5366 coming in rash and negligent manner with a high speed ultimately resulting in death of the deceased. The claimants have averred in their application for compensation that the deceased was earning Rs.95,000/- per month from his transport business and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family, but due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered financial setback. Accordingly, the claimants-appellants filed the application for compensation impleading the owner and insurer of the offending bus.

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim, the owner of the offending bus-cum- R-1 did not participate and was set ex-parte by order dated 24.04.2022, however, the insurer of the offending bus who is R-2 here contested the claim by filing written statement denying its liability, but the learned Tribunal accordingly allowed the contesting party to lead evidence and on closure of evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal upon analysis of the pleadings and evidence on record upon hearing the parties, passed the impugned award by directing the insurer-cum-R-2 to pay a sum of Rs.23,27,066/- to the appellants- claimants, together with 6% simple interest per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of application till actual realization, but being dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal. It needs to be emphasized here that the R-2-cum-insurer has, however, satisfied the aforesaid award without disputing the same.

3. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants disputes the quantum of compensation on the main ground of Tribunal erroneously taking the actual income of the deceased by deducting the amount of standard deduction in the Income Tax Return (in short, “ITR”) while calculating the income of the deceased. Mr.Mishra accordingly has submitted that although the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the Income Tax assessment year 2011-12 for computing the compensation, but it has whimsically taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,62,633/- without any rhyme and reason instead of correct one of Rs.2,55,923/- as per the IT return of the year 2011-12. Mr.Mishra accordingly prays to grant appropriate compensation to the appellants by enhancing the compensation amount.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr.Sabitra Ranjan Pattanaik, learned counsel for the R2-insurer, however, supporting the impugned award has submitted that there is no error in computing the compensation for the claimants and, thereby, the appeal being unmerited may kindly be dismissed.

4. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, it emerges that the real dispute between the parties is the quantum of compensation and the manner of its computation. The factual aspect of age and death of the deceased in the accident has neither been disputed nor the award has been challenged by the insurer and it is, therefore, considered that the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to death of the deceased in motor vehicular accident is not disputed