JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.2.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon in MAC Case No. 137/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.3.2009 one Thomas Amsong was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-21/B-0221, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving and as a result, Thomas Amsong sustained injury. Immediately after the accident he was taken to Public Health Centre, Umpani, wherefrom he was shifted to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. As the victim sustained disability because of suffering injury and was bed ridden, the claim petition was initially filed on behalf of the injured (since deceased) by his wife, seeking compensation. During pendency of the claim petition, the injured died and the claim petition was amended by converting it into the death claim. 3. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by the impugned order, on the ground of maintainability. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the instant appeal. 4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged before this Court that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of maintainability, inasmuch as, the death of the victim was caused due to the injury sustained in the Motor Vehicle Accident. Learned counsel contended, that initially the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injury and subsequently due to death of the injured, the claim petition was amended, and therefore, learned tribunal committed serious error by rejecting the claim petition mechanically, on the ground of maintainability, without taking into account the evidence and materials brought on record. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and another V. Bhola Rai reported in 2011 ACJ 2603 , that in a claim case, if the claimant can prove the casual connection between the accident and the injury or the death, the claim petition cannot be thrown away. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no evidence to prove, that the death of the victim was due to the injuries sustained due to vehicular accident and therefore claim petition was rightly rejected by the triubunal. 6. In view of the submission of the learned counsel and the materials brought, on record, it appears that the only question to be answered for disposal of this appeal is whether the victim Thomas Amsong died out of the injury sustained due to accident? 7. The claimant stated in his evidence that after the accident, the victim was taken to Public Health Centre, Umapani, wherefrom he was shifted to GNRC. The victim was treated at GNRC for 41 days. After release from the GNRC hospital, the victim was treated at Mercy Hospital, Nogaon. According to claimant the victim was also treated at Nellie Civil Hospital and Morigaon Civil Hospital. However, he did not recover from his injury and ultimately died on 9.2.2013. Evidently accident occurred on 11.3.2009 and victim died on 9.2.2013. The claimant produced the medical documents being Ext. 4 to Ext. 122 indicating that the victim was hospitalised in GNRC hospital for 41 days. Ext. 5 shows that the victim Thomas Amsong sustained head injury and fracture of right radius. Ext. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 show that he was continuously under the treatment for ailments and health complicacy related to the injuries. Ext. 11 & 12 show that because of complicacy arising out of the injury related ailment, the Civil Hospital Morigaon referred the victim for better treatment to GMCH on 5.12.2012. These documentary evidence showing that the victim was under treatment up to December, 2012, because of injuries, remained uncontroverted during cross examination of the claimant. The claimant, however, did not adduce any evidence to show that after 5.12.2012, the victim was taken to GMC. Even if the claimant failed to take the victim to GMCH for better treatment, for what ever reason, leading to death of the victim, the evidence adduced by the claimant regarding treatment of the deceased till December, 2012, could not be brushed aside. 8. Death certificate proved as Ext.3 shows that the victim died on 9.2.2013 i.e. after about two months of referring him to GMCH for better treatment. 8. Death certificate proved as Ext.3 shows that the victim died on 9.2.2013 i.e. after about two months of referring him to GMCH for better treatment. Factum of the victim having sustained severe injuries on head and other parts of the body, due to vehicular accident was not disputed. The oral evidence of the claimant supported by the documentary evidence as indicated above, clerly demonstrates that the deceased had been continuously under treatment for the injury and his condition further deteriorated in the month of December, 2012, for which he was referred to GMCH, Guwahati, by the Civil Hospital, Morigaon. No doubt, post mortem examination was not performed after death of the victim. Nevertheless, the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence clearly established that the victim was suffering from the injuries and he was undergoing treatment till December, 2012 and considering the gravity of the ailments of the deceased because of the injuries, he was referred to GMCH. However, no evidence has been adduced showing that he was taken to GMCH. The claimant, a poorlady, residing in a very interior place of a hill district of the State, it might not be unusual, that she could not afford to take the victim to GMCH for treatment. Though the victim was not subjected to post-mortem examination and there was no direct evidence showing the cause of death, but the evidence brought on record particularly continuation of treatment of the victim till the end of 2012 and his death in the month of February, 2013 is sufficient, in my view, to establish a casual connection between the injury and the death of the victim, considering the evidence in the touch stone preponderance of probability. 9. While dealing with the extent and standard of proof required for succeeding in a claim for death or injury in Motor Vehicle Accident, this Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs Bhola Rai reported in 2011 ACJ 2603 held as under: “Though the casual relationship between the use of the vehicle and the injury considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision was in the context of a petrol tanker overturned as a result of collision with truck and after a few hours explosion and fire taking place in it causing death, in my opinion, the underlying principles therein will be applicable on the facts of this case. True, the deceased did not immediately die after the accident but died more than 3 years after the accident. Nevertheless, once the claimant-respondent is able to create a high degree of probability on the basis of the evidence of a battery of witnesses that after the deceased met with the accident, he was under prolonged medical treatment and had never resumed duty due to his inability to produce medical fitness certificate, the onus of proving that he died(sic did not die) due to the combined effect of the injuries sustained by him in the said vehicular accident and his uncontrolled blood sugar shifted to the appellant. Having not done so, I have no alternative but to hold that there is casual connection, even though not immediate, between the accident and the eventual death of the deceased. On the contention of the learned C.G.C. that the interest awarded is on the high side, I do not think so. Presently, the interest rate prevailing in the commercial banks has gone up to 8 percent or more. The rate of interest prevailing at the time of filing the claim petition, i.e., 2000, was also roundabout 8 percent per annum. Therefore, this contention has also no leg to stand on.” 10. In view of the ratio laid down in Union of India and another (supra) and the evidence discussed herein above, in my view, the claimant has discharged his burden to prove that the victim Thomas Amsong died due to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident. Respondent/Insurance Company neither adduced any evidence to show that the victim died for some other reason, nor controverted the evidence of the claimant, which clearly established a casual connection between the death of the victim and the injuries sustained by him due to accident. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances it can reasonably be held that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained in the accident. 11. Situated thus, the claimant is certainly entitled to compensation for the death of her husband due to motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred in the year 2009 and already 8 years have elapsed. Having taken note of the fact that the matter is pending for last 8 years, I am of the view, that it would not be appropriate to remand the matter to the tribunal for determining the quantum of compensation at this stage. The accident occurred in the year 2009 and already 8 years have elapsed. Having taken note of the fact that the matter is pending for last 8 years, I am of the view, that it would not be appropriate to remand the matter to the tribunal for determining the quantum of compensation at this stage. Therefore, I deem it proper to determine the compensation in the interest of justice. COMPENSATION: 12. The medical documents relating to the treatment of the deceased show that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. In the claim petition also age of the deceased has been shown as 30 years. The claimant stated that the deceased was a vegetable vendor at the time of accident and he was earning Rs 4,500/- P.M. This evidence of the claimant with regard to the age of the victim and his occupation remained uncontroverted during cross examination of the claimant. Although no documentary evidence was adduced with regard to the income of the deceased, considering the occupation of the deceased, his income of Rs.4,500/- per month appears to be quite reasonable. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.50% of the income as future prospect as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sontosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 . In view of the age of the deceased the multiplier has to be applied 17. In order to assess the loss of dependency,1/3 of the income has to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , claimant shall also be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus the compensation which the claimant is entitled is assessed as under: Total Loss of dependency 4500 X 12 X 17 = Rs. 9,18,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 25,000/- Loss of Consortium = Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 10,43,000/- 13. That the respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd was the insurer of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore the award shall be satisfied by the respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 14. Thus the Oriental Insurance Co. 9,18,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 25,000/- Loss of Consortium = Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 10,43,000/- 13. That the respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd was the insurer of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore the award shall be satisfied by the respondent No.2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 14. Thus the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, respondent No. 2, is directed to satisfy the award along with the interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim, by depositing the award with the Tribunal, within two months from this order. Upon depositing the amount by the insurance Company, tribunal shall pay 30% of the award with interest to the claimant by account payee cheque and rest amount with interest shall be fixed deposited in the name of the claimant for six months in a nationalised bank. Appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCR.