Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030002302026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./2/2026 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch R/b Branch Manager, Aizawl Branch, Aizawl VERSUS Smt. Dawnengi and 2 Ors. W/o Zomawia R/o Bungtlang South Mizoram 2:Sh. MD Ruhul Amin Laskar 3:Sh. Hussain Ahme Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr K Laldinliana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Zoramchhana for R1 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 23.07.2026 Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, the learned Standing Counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd., Aizawl Branch, and Mr. Zoramchhana, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Page No.# 2/4 2. By this application filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2025, passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 33/2020. 3. The petitioner has a limited ground of challenge and according to him the calculation was incorrectly done by the learned Court of Member-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl in its award by the said judgment and order impugned in the instant proceeding. According to him, the income after deduction should be @ 50 % of the income but the learned court had calculated the same as ¼ of the income and as such, he submits that the calculation made by the learned court to an amount of Rs. 1,68,000 × 1 ÷ 100 × 4, which comes to Rs. 1,61,280/- is incorrect, according to the learned counsel. 4. It is further submitted that the deduction of the income towards personal and living expenses should be 50 % of the income and by calculating the same it comes to Rs. 84,000/- and not Rs. 1,61,280/-, as calculated by the learned court. 5. To substantiate the argument he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court passed in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi”, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein, it was held that, where the deceased was a self employed and was a person of fixed salary without any provision for annual increments, the Court in its earlier decision i.e. “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, had held that it should be a rule that 50 % actual salary could be added if the deceased had a permanent job and if the age of the deceased is between 42 to 50 years. As such, he submits that the calculation Page No.# 3/4 done by the Court was on a mistaken belief and not as per the law laid down. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 i.e. the claimant had pointed out that the calculation made in the award by the learned court with regard to the conventional compensation was incorrect. 7. In view of the findings given by the Supreme Court in the same case i.e. “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi”, (supra), wherein, it was held that with regard to conventional heads although loss of estate, loss consortium and funeral expenses should be calculated at Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively but it is also held by the Supreme Court that the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ of 10 % in every 3 years. He submits that the case of Pranay Sethi was delivered by the Supreme Court on 31st October, 2017 and, as such, he submits that after 3 years, i.e. in 2020, the said amount should have been increased by 10 % and thereafter, again on conclusion of another 3 years i.e. in 2023, the same should be enhanced at another 10 % and since the Judgment in the instant case has been delivered in the year 2025, as such, the learned counsel submits that the said amount towards conventional compensation should be increased by 20 % and the same was not done by the learned Court of MACT, Aizawl. 8. He as such, submits that as far as the funeral expenses is concerned, the amount should be Rs. 18,000/- and with regard to loss of estate, the amount should be Rs. 18,000/- and towards loss of consortium, the amount should be Rs. 48,000/-. By applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the total would come to an amount of Rs. 84,000/- towards conventional compensation. Page No.# 4/4 9. By making the necessary calculations , i.e. recalculating the amount payable under the column, deduction of income as well the conversational compensation, .i.e. Rs. 13, 44,000/- + Rs. 84,000/-, the total amount would come to Rs. 14,28,000/-. Hence the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,28,000/- along with interest @ of 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition dated 01.12.2020 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After paying the compensation amount the appellant is at the liberty to recover the said amount from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, if it is permissible under the law. 10. Further, the amount deposited as statutory deposit by the appellant while filing the appeal before this Court is permitted to be taken back by the appellant. The amount of Rs. 14, 28, 000/- is directed to be paid by the appellant before the Registry of this Court, from where the payment will be made to the claimant with interest as stated above, as per law. 11. The MAC Appeal is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant