Judgement And Order (Cav)

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’), Bongaigaon in MAC Case No.04/2010. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 8,21,400/- from Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of the loss of consortium which was summed up to only Rs 10,000/-. It is contended that loss of estate was not awarded and funeral expense was only Rs.5000/-.

2. It is further averred that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased was a carpenter and the notional income was held at a paltry sum of Rs. 3000/-per month, which is much below the average income of a carpenter. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was wrongly calculated. It is contended that the age of the deceased was to be calculated according to the post-mortem report, but the learned Tribunal by exceeding jurisdiction considered the cross-examination of the claimant, PW-1 and had ascertained the age of the deceased to be 39 years without considering the post-mortem report exhibited as Exhibit-5 as well as the claim petition wherein the age of the deceased was clearly reflected as 30 years and the appropriate multiplier would be 16 instead of 15, as taken up by the Tribunal. The appellant is also aggrieved by the omission of future prospect in calculating the loss of dependency, as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 13 SCR 100 that the future prospects has to be enhanced after every three years. No loss of estate was also awarded and the learned Tribunal has ignored that the deceased was a skilled worker.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company has laid stress in his argument that the appellant failed to submit hisproof of income and thus, the notional income of Rs. 3000/- was considered to be the monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that no interest could be added on future prospects while paying the compensation. It is further submitted that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a carpenter cannot produce an income certificate cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed as this appeal is bereft of merits.

4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

5. Now, the point for determination is :

                   “Whether the learned Tribunal has erroneously computed the compensation.”

Analysis, reasoning and conclusion.

6. The genesis of the case was that on 12.12.2009, at about 9 a.m., Mayan Ali (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ or the ‘victim’) was proceeding towards Salbari from his residence on his bicycle on the left side of the PWD road, when one bus bearing registration No. AML-559, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased sustained the fatal injuries and died on the spot. The wife of the deceased, Mustt. Rupbhan Beowa (herein after referred to as the ‘claimant’) filed a claim petition and United India Insurance (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurer’ or ‘respondent No.1’), Sri Manik Chandra Paul and Sri Binoy Kumar Nath were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. During the pendency of the appeal, names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and driver of the aforementioned vehicles were struck off. On the basis of the claim petition, original MAC Appeal Case No. 04/2010 was registered. The insurer, owner and driver of the vehicle No. AML-559 (bus) contested the proceeding and filed the written statement. They have denied the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The O.P Nos. 2 and 3 have prayed for exoneration as the aforementioned vehicle was duly insured. However, the O.P/ respondent No.1 has questioned the income of the deceased, and has denied liability to pay the compensation.

7. To substantiate her stance, the claimant adduced the evidence of witnesses and exhibited several documents.

8. The claimant as PW-1 has reiterated her pleadings and has substantiated that the accident occurred on 12.12.2009 at about 9 a.m. while her husband was proceeding on his bicycle along the PWD Road. He was taking the left side of the road when the vehicle bearing Registration No. AML-559 was speeding down and knocked her husband from behind. Her husband sustained grievous injuries and immediately died on the spot. Md. Sahid Ali was a witness to this accident and he also stated as PW-2 that he had witnessed the accident. The accident incident report was marked and exhibited as Exhibit-1. The extract copy of Salkota GD Entry No.261 dated 12.12.2009 was marked as Exhibit- 2, the certified copy of the FIR was marked as Exhibit-3 and it depicts that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and a case was registered as Kokrajhar PS case No.427/2009 under sections 279/304- A of the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, it was correctly held by learned Tribunal that the accident was the result of rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was also held that the cross-examination of PW-1 and 3 that the deceased could not ride the bicycle properly could not be rebutted. The insurer failed to rebut the evidence of the eyewitness as well as the evidence of the other witnesses. The documentary evidence also could prove the fact that the deceased died as a result of the accident. The postmortem report marked as Exhibit-5 reflects the date of the accident. Now the post-mortem report is important in this case, as the bone of contention is that the quantum of compensation was wrongly assessed, relying on the age given by PW-1 in the cross-examination.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Vinod Singh & others reported in 2025 INSC 366 wherein it has been held that:

                   “…………………….Coming to the multiplier factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed, appellant no. 1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of 15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s. Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years. With regard to the loss of love and affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every three years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental, and filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the amount shall be [Rs.48,000/-x 5] which comes to Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable under the head of loss of love and affection.”

10. Reverting back to the instant case, it appears that the learned Tribunal has calculated the age of the deceased by relying on the evidence of the claimant/ appellant who deposed as PW-1. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant/ appellant (PW-1) in her cross-examination stated that her present age was 35 years and her husband was four years older than her. Considering the age given by PW-1, 4 years was added to the age of the appellant who gave her age as 35 years and the age of the appellant's husband was taken to be 39 years. The cross-examination of PW-1 was recorded on 09.01.2014 and the accident occurred on 12.12.2009. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not required to proceed with the calculation of the age, which was taken up much later, i.e. on 09.01.2014, the date of cross-examination of PW-1 whereas the accident occurred 12.12.2009. It is true that an exact calculation will not lead us to the correct age of the deceased. The best document to assess the age of the deceased would be the post-mortem report as the age assessed by the doctor will leave less room for erroneous calculation of the age. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & ors (supra), it is hereby held that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident and the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 16 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Smti) Sarla Verma vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

11. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the learned Tribunal has correctly decided that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. The insurer is liable to exonerate the owner as the bus was duly insured by the respondent vide policy No.130605/31/09/02/00002966 which was valid up to 21.11.2010 and thus the policy was valid at the time of the accident, which occurred on 12.12.2009. The driver of the offending vehicle was also holding a valid driving license vide D/L No.1446/GF which was also valid up 09.07.2011. Through the claim petition and the pleadings, the appellant projected that her husband was earning Rs. 8000/- per month as a carpenter, at the time of the accident, but, no documentary evidence was furnished to substantiate the income of the deceased and the notional income at the rate of Rs 3000/- was taken up as the monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that a carpenter is a skilled worker and Rs.3,000/- per month can never be the monthly income of a carpenter. The evidence of PW-1 has been substantiated by the evidence of the eyewitness. PW-2 stated that the deceased was a carpenter by profession with a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. Another witness, Md. Sukur Ali has also substantiated the fact that the deceased was a carpenter with a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/-. Considering a carpenter to be a skilled worker, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 129/- per day, according to the notification of the Assam Government's Minimum Wage Notification in 2009 under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 which indicates the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3870/-

12. It is not clear if the deceased was permanently employed as a salaried carpenter and thus the deceased is held to be a self-employed carpenter on a fixed salary. As the age of the deceased was below 40 years at the time of an incident, 40% of his salary is added as loss of future prospects.

13. 40% of Rs. 3870/- tantamounts to Rs.1548/- which is added to Rs.3870/- From Rs.5418/-, 1/3rd is deducted towards future expenses has the deceased was survived by his wife and two children. After 1/3rd is deducted out of Rs.5418/-, the loss of dependency tantamounts to Rs.3612 x 12 x 16 = 6,93,504/-.

14. The multiplier in this case is 16 and the multiplicand is Rs.3612 x 12. The multiplier is assessed in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Smti) Sarla Verma vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

                   15. The following conventional heads are added to Rs.6,93,504/-:

                   Rs.15,000/- -- Loss of Estate

                   Rs.40,000/-x 3= (1,20,000/-) --Loss of spouses and parental consortium

                   Rs.15,000/- -- Funeral expanses

                   Total= Rs.8,43,504/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Forty Three Thousand and Five Hundred and Four)

15. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Niru, @ Niharika and others reported in 2025 INSC 822 wherein it has been held in paragraph 7 as follows:

                   “7. Yet another contention taken up is the interest granted at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company relies on Annexure P-1 history of the case to contend that there was undue delay caused by reason of the claimants having not entered their evidence. From Annexure P-1, we see that the claim petition was filed on 28.12.1995 and it first came up for hearing on 11.09.2012. It is seen from Annexure P-1 that the case was posted for applicants' evidence on various dates from 2012 to 2016. However, there is nothing to indicate that it was only by reason of the claimants' absence that the consideration was delayed. Merely because, on various dates, for 4 years, the case was posted for the claimants' evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the claimants were responsible for the delay. Laws delays cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast upon the shoulders of one or other party to the lis. We hence do not find any reason to find the delay to be the sole responsibility of the claimants and in that circumstance necessarily interest must run from the date of filing of the claim petition, to the date of payment; for which precedents are legion, and we need not refer to them.”

16. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niru @ Niharika (supra), the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. It is also directed that the interest on the future prospects to be excluded.

17. Appeal is hereby allowed.

18. No order as to costs.

19. Send back the original records of the Tribunal.