1. Heard Mr. Arnab Kar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel and Mr. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Insurance Company as well as Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel for the owner-respondent No.1.

2. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant herein challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.S.(MAC) No.46 of 2020, whereby compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded. The appellant seeks enhancement of the said compensation.

3. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 01.01.2018, the deceased, Sri Sachin Halam, was proceeding towards his house after attending a programme held on 31st December. At that time, the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-01-X-1609 (Tata Truck), being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the victim. As a result, the victim sustained fatal injuries, and he died at the spot.

4. In connection with the accident, Ambassa Police Station Case No.2018ABS001 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Thereafter, claimant herein being the legal representative of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.58,76,786/-.

6. Accordingly, after perusal of the case and consideration of the documents, the learned Tribunal passed the above mentioned award

7. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 25.03.2026, the claimant-appellant filed this present appeal seeking the following reliefs:-

                  “a. Admit this appeal;

                  b. Issue Notice upon the Opposite Parties-Respondents;

                  c. Call for the Lower Court Records appertaining to this instant appeal;

                  d. After Hearing the both the parties, be pleased to allow the appeal by enhancing the awarded amount to Rs. 58,76,786/-(Rupees Fifty Eight Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only) for fair ends of justice;

                  e. Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper in the interest of justice.”

8. Mr. A. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed the income of the deceased. The deceased was a day labourer and, in terms of the High Court Notification dated 04.08.2023, his income ought to have been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, being the prescribed wage for an unskilled worker. It is further submitted that appropriate compensation under the conventional heads, including filial consortium payable to the mother of the deceased, ought to have been granted.

9. Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant interference.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that although no documentary evidence has been produced to establish the exact income of the deceased, the deceased was admittedly working as a day labourer. Therefore, for assessment of his income, reliance is placed upon the High Court Notification dated 04.08.2023, whereby the monthly wage of an unskilled worker has been fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month

11. In terms of the lower Court findings, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident. Since he was below 40 years of age and was self-employed/a day labourer, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is to be made in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

12. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Accordingly, in terms of the findings of the learned Tribunal, multiplier 15 is adopted.

13. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant is re-assessed as follows:-

                  13.1. The monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, his annual income comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made. Thus, the annual income of the deceased, after adding future prospects, comes to Rs.1,68,000/-.

                  13.2. As the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family is assessed at Rs.84,000/-.

                  13.3. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.84,000/- x 15= Rs.12,60,000/-.

                  13.4. In addition thereto, the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium payable to the mother of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate as per the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Churu Ram and ors, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

14. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,60,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.13,30,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty thousand) only together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual payment. It is made clear that apart for the observation made by this Court here-in-above, all other aspect of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

15. Accordingly, with the above observation and direction, this present appeal is allowed, the respondent-Insurance company herein is directed to deposite the awarded amount as indicated here-in-above to the Registry of this Court within 1(one) month from today, if not already paid adjusting the statutory amount, if any. On such deposit, claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same as per procedure.

16. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.