Proper assessment of compensation for road traffic accidents under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, considering factors such as income, future prospects, and miscellaneous expenses for prolonged treatment, and addressing delays in the proceeding of the case.

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No.2).

2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.7.2013, in the MAC Case No.384/2004, whereby the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, has awarded compensation to claimant Mrs. Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania (appellant herein) for the death of her husband Pawan Kumar Chirania in a road traffic accident.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the claimant is that on 9.5.2003, when the husband of the claimant was standing by the side of the NH-31, at South Raipur near Nandini Bridge, at that time he was knocked down by a vehicle (Vespa Scooter) bearing Regn. No.AS-17/0715, driven by the driver in a rush and negligent manner. As a result, the victim sustained multiple grievous injuries on his person and severe head injury and there was complete collapse of brain function apart from other fracture of bone also. Although the victim was provided all possible treatment from the local hospital to GNRC, Guwahati and to Vellore also but the condition of the victim did not improve. The brain operation of the victim was also done twice but of no result. The victim was stated to be completely bed ridden and permanently disabled and due to continuous disability, the victim died on 21.4.2006, out the said brain injury. The wife of the deceased preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of her husband including the expenditure incurred while continuing the treatment and all other compensation admissible under the law.

4. The aforesaid petition was registered as MAC Case No.384/2004 and necessary notice was issued to the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle and all of them contested the case by filing their written statement denying the allegations. The driver and owner in their written statement have admitted the accident and stated that such an incident has happened due to machinery defect and act of the God. However, they have submitted that as the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., so the compensation, if any, is to indemnify by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in their written statement also admitted about the fact of accident but submitted the claim as baseless, speculative, inflated, excessive, abnormal and prays for dismissal of the claim.

5. The learned Tribunal after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the claimant's side and examining the bunch of documents that were filed in course of the proceeding, has come to a finding that the accident occurred due to fault of the aforesaid scooter driven by the driver and the deceased died of the injuries sustained in the said accident. Calculating the amount that incurred for treatment of the victim and taking into note the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and after necessary deduction, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,23,000/- to the claimant with interest @8% per annum, with direction to the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount.

6. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant on being dissatisfied with the award that was given by the Tribunal and has prayed for enhancement of the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated certain aspects while assessing the compensation. It has been contended that the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 7000/- per month, as per the salary certificate given in this regard and assessment of Rs. 3,000/- per month is quite on lower side which should be increased. Further it has been contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the actual cost that has been incurred by the claimant for continuing three years treatment to the victim, who was