Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010029122025 2025:GAU-AS:2236 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./51/2025 BRAJEN DEKA S/O. LT. SURJA DEKA. 2: POMPY DEKA @ RITUMONI DEKA D/O. SRI BRAJEN DEKA BOTH ARE R/O. VILL.- CHINTA GAON P/O. AND P/S. KALAIGAON DIST. UDALGURI (BTAD) ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NORTH GUWAHATI P/O. AND P/S. NORTH GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS DURGASWAR CHUTIA S/O. SRI TUPIRAM CHUTIA, R/O. VILL.- BORKATHANI, P/S. HOWAJAN, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784169. 2:RATNA KANTA BORAH S/O. LT THOGIRAM BORAH R/O. VILL. BORACHUK P/S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM PIN-784168. 3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP METRO Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN-781005 Advocate for the appellant(s): Mr. SSS Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s): X X B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 03.03.2025 Heard Mr. SSS Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 11.11.2024 passed in MAC Case No.1437/2016 whereby the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati had awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,05,100/- to the claimants along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim proceedings i.e. 14.06.2016. 3. The grounds of objection taken in the instant memo of appeal is as regards the inadequacy of compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the deceased earned Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal had based its compensation by holding that income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a beneficial legislation, the Page No.# 3/3 learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher compensation. 4. This Court had duly perused the elaborate judgment passed by the learned Tribunal wherein the learned Tribunal had duly taken note of the evidence so adduced in detail. The learned Tribunal further observed that there was not a single document produced as regards the income of the deceased. 5. Taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned Tribunal at paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 have elaborately considered the evidence on record and came to an opinion that the monthly income of the deceased is to be considered @Rs.4000/- per month. The same appears to be in terms with the well settled principles of law. 6. Taking into account the above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for admission of the instant appeal and, therefore, in exercise of its powers under Order XLI Rule 11, the instant appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant