Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010026652017 2026:GAU-AS:14684 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./293/2017 BAITUN NESSA BIBI and 4 ORS W/O LATE NURL AMIN AHMED 2: NAJMOL HOQUE AHMED AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O LATE NURUL AMIN AHMED 3: BAJRUL HOQUE AHMED AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS S/O LATE NURUL AMIN AHMED 4: RAKIBUL HOQUE AHMED AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS S/O LATE NURUL AMIN AHMED 5: NARSINA AHMED AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS D/O LATE NURUL AMIN AHMED ALL OF THEM ARE R/O VILL. MOKRAMBIL P.O. TULSIBIL P.S. GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM APPELLANT NO. 2 TO 5 ARE MINOR AND AS SUCH THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN I.E. MOTHER WHO IS APPELLANT NO. VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD and ANR REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, TINSUKIA DIVISION, SECOND FLOOR, INDERS MANSION A.T. ROAD, P.O. and DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN NO. 786125 INSURER OF TATA SUMO GOLD, VEHICLE REGD. NO. AS- 06-AC-5052 POLICY NO. 5527003113630013826300138263 HAVING VALIDITY UP TO 23-12-2014 3:JITU SAHU S/O JIBAN SAHU OF VILL. DIBRULGAON Page No.# 2/8 P.O. BORBARUAH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM DRIVER OF TATA SUMO GOLD VEHICLE REGD. NO. AS06-AC-5052 HAVING VALID D/L NO. 94299/TV/NW/10 VALID UP TO 24.02.2016 PIN NO. 78600 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BARMAN, MR.I A TALUKDAR,MS.P MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MS. C MOZUMDAR,MR. S P SHARMA :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.10.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Page No.# 3/8 Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 61/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,53,380/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty three thousand three hundred eighty) only as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of the death of Nurul Amin Ahmed in a motor vehicle accident, with a direction to the respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the said amount within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the award. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the claimants are the wife and 4 (four) children of the deceased, Nurul Amin Ahmed, who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. On 04.07.2014 at about 7:30 a.m., while the deceased was travelling from Dibrugarh towards Guwahati via Nagaon in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AS-06/AC-5052 in connection with his official work, the said vehicle met with an accident at Mahariati on National Highway-37 due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. At the relevant time, the deceased was serving as a Lat Mandal in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, under the Government of Assam. 4. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle were impleaded as opposite parties in the claim proceeding. However, the owner and driver did not appear and contest the proceeding and accordingly, the case proceeded ex parte against them. The respondent-Insurance Company contested the claim by filing its written statement, denying, inter alia, the allegation of rash and negligent driving, the age, occupation and income of the deceased and its liability to indemnify the owner, besides taking the plea that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Upon consideration of the Page No.# 4/8 evidence adduced by the parties, including the accident information report, post-mortem report, FIR and charge-sheet, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the claimants were entitled to compensation. 6. Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, learned counsel submits that the appellants are entitled to an addition towards future prospects while computing the loss of dependency. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted a sum of Rs. 11,280/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred eighty) only towards the enhanced family pension from the income of the deceased and has also assessed his monthly income at Rs. 24,900/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred) instead of Rs. 25,008/- (Rupees twenty five thousand eight). Therefore, he submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be suitably enhanced by re- computing the loss of dependency in accordance with law. 7. Ms. R. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects of the deceased are also required to be taken into consideration while determining the just compensation payable to the claimants and therefore, does not raise any objection for determination of the compensation in accordance with law. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Page No.# 5/8 Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 9. It is noticed that the learned Tribunal, while determining the compensation payable to the appellants, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 24,900/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred) and deducted a sum of Rs. 11,280/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred eighty) only towards the enhanced family pension and thereafter, made a deduction of 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 11. However, while computing the loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal did not make any addition towards future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires re-computation by taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. Page No.# 6/8 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a permanent employee of the Government of Assam and was aged 51 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income of the Page No.# 7/8 deceased for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency, an addition of 15% towards future prospects is required to be made, the deceased having been between the age of 50 and 60 years and being in permanent employment. The learned Tribunal, while determining the compensation, has not made any such addition towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation requires to be re-computed by taking into consideration the aforesaid addition of 15% towards future prospects. 12. As noted above, the learned Tribunal had assessed the monthly income of the deceased, after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,280/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred eighty) only towards the enhanced family pension, at Rs. 13,620/- (Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred twenty) only and, after deducting 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses, had arrived at a monthly contribution of Rs. 10,215/- (Rupees ten thousand two hundred fifteen) only towards the family. On the said amount, applying the multiplier of 11, the learned Tribunal had assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 13,48,380/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs forty eight thousand three hundred eighty) only. 13. Therefore, 15% of the monthly contribution of Rs. 10,215/- (Rupees ten thousand two hundred fifteen) only towards future prospects works out to Rs. 1,532.25/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred thirty two and twenty five paise) only per month. The additional amount payable towards future prospects would, therefore, be calculated as follows: Future Prospects: Rs. 1,532.25 × 12 × 11 = Rs. 2,02,257/- (Rupees two lakhs two thousand two hundred fifty seven) only Thus, the appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 2,02,257/- Page No.# 8/8 (Rupees two lakhs two thousand two hundred fifty seven) only towards future prospects over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, the total compensation payable to the appellants would stand enhanced from Rs. 15,53,380/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty three thousand three hundred eighty) only to Rs. 17,55,637/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty five thousand six hundred thirty seven) only. 15. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated 17.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, in MAC Case No.61/2015, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,02,257/- (Rupees two lakhs two thousand two hundred fifty seven) only to the appellants. The amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal shall remain undisturbed. The aforesaid additional amount on account of future prospects shall carry interest at the rate awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the present appeal till realization. 16. The appeal accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. JUDGE Comparing Assistant