JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1-7. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 02.12.2019 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No.44/2018, by which the compensation amount of Rs.84,06,564/-(Rupees eighty four lakhs six thousand five hundred sixty four)only has been awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 17.09.2018 till final payment. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 29.06.2018 @ 9:10 one vehicle B/R No.AS-01-DD-9295 (LPK Tipper) belonging to M/S Sun Logistic Prop Swati Krishna Das which was driven by Altab Hussain Laskar, S/o Kutub Uddin Laskar, Ramnagar met an accident at Hunthar Veng, Vaivakawn Company Peng-Sairang road. The vehicle was overturned and the front portion was severely damaged. The driver and three other occupants of the said vehicle were injured and sent to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for medical treatment. The said vehicle also ran over and dashed against one Lalrinfela S/o Lalvulmawii who was walking on the footpath. Hence, Vaivakawn P/S C/No. 106/18 dt. 30.06.2018 u/s 279/304(A)/337 IPC was registered against the said driver. The deceased Lalrinfela had joined the 14th Assam Regiment as Army Personal since 2012 for monthly salary of Rs.39,591/-till he died in the road traffic. He was 27 years of age. The vehicle B/R No. AS-01-DD-9295 involved in the accident was validly insured with the instant Appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd. under policy No.2000102311810000965 (package policy) which has its validity from 21.06.2018 till 20.06.2019. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contested the Judgment & Award of the Lower Court in MACT case No. 44/2018 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on the following grounds: i) That the Ld. Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3 instead of ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased who is bachelor at the time of accident. However it is well settled law that in case of deceased bachelor, mother alone will be considered as dependent. Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, father, sisters and brothers would not be considered as dependent. Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3 instead of ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased who is bachelor at the time of accident. However it is well settled law that in case of deceased bachelor, mother alone will be considered as dependent. Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, father, sisters and brothers would not be considered as dependent. The learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another in (2009) 6 SCC 121 para 31 & 32 ii) The Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the deposition of the Claimant witness No. 2 Enquiry Officer namely S.I Rebecca H.S Zuali where it has not been proved that the cause of the accident was due to rash and negligent act on the part of the Truck Driver iii) That the region covered for the Goods Permit of AS 01 DD 9295, issued by Kamrup RTO, is All Assam only while the accident occurred in Mizoram which was outside the permitted region for the said vehicle. In this regard, if any compensation is awarded in favour of the claimants, the owner of the accident vehicle is liable to indemnify such liability iv) That the additional Rs 1,00,000/- towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, Rs 1,00,000/- towards of loss expectation of life, Rs 1,00,000/- towards loss of pain and suffering are not warranted and against the Apex Court Judgment. Learned counsel relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in “The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.3 to 59.8. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Lalremmawii & Ors in MAC. App. No. 15 of 2018. v) The Ld. Tribunal had wrongly taken total/gross salary of the deceased and wherein Transport Allowance (TPAL) amounting to Rs. 1800/- was included in it. The instant TPAL amounting to Rs. 1800/- is liable to deduct from the salary of the deceased for computing his monthly income. 5. App. No. 15 of 2018. v) The Ld. Tribunal had wrongly taken total/gross salary of the deceased and wherein Transport Allowance (TPAL) amounting to Rs. 1800/- was included in it. The instant TPAL amounting to Rs. 1800/- is liable to deduct from the salary of the deceased for computing his monthly income. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that with respect to the contention of the Appellant Insurance Co for deduction of the income of the deceased from 1/3 to ½, this issue has been dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Supra) wherein this Court took the view that “where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” The Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance C.Ltd -vs- Nanu Ram reported in 2018(4) TAC 345 (SC) Para 8.2 allowed 1/3 as personal and living expenses for the deceased bachelor. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Court is dutybound and entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of whether any pleas in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In Vimla Devi & Ors. -vs- National Insurance Co.Ltd reported in 2018(4) TAC 842 (SC) Para 38,the Supreme Court allowed Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of spousal and parental consortium. In Bhogireddi Varalakshmi & Ors -vs- Mani Muthupandi & Ors reported in (2018) 11 SCC 73 Para 12 “ it was held that “The widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 and the children together are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection.” 7. Regarding the plea that the Goods Permit of AS 01DD 9295 is issued for only All Assam while the accident occurred in Mizoram. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. E.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 223 Para where it was held that “In the absence of the pleading to that effect, the trial court did not frame any issue on that question. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. E.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 223 Para where it was held that “In the absence of the pleading to that effect, the trial court did not frame any issue on that question. The pleadings comprising of the averments set out in the plaint and the defence put up by the present appellant in their written statement did not relate to the validity of the rule struck down by the High Court. The High Court, therefore, travelled beyond the pleadings in declaring the rule to be ultra vires.” 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the income of the deceased should not be disputed since it was based on the Last pay certificate and the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation amount of Rs. Rs.49,84,080/- by relying upon Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. LTD -vs- Pranay Sethi (supra) para 61, Vimla Devi and Others –Vs. National insurance Company Ltd & ors 2018(4) TAC(SC) and Sarla Verma & Others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & Another 2009 6 SCC 121 The Learned Counsel submitted that Rs 1,00,000 was correctly added towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased as per the ruling passed by the Apex Court in Kalpanaraj and Ors -Vs- Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015)2 SCC 764 . 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the record of the learned Tribunal. 10. The respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased, respondent No.2 is the father of the deceased, respondent Nos. 3-7 are the siblings of the deceased, respondent No.8 is the owner of the accident vehicle and respondent No.9 is the driver of the accident vehicle, respondent Nos. 8 & 9 did not contest the case. 11. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties: i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style? ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle? iii) Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? 12. The learned Tribunal examined the two witnesses. ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle? iii) Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? 12. The learned Tribunal examined the two witnesses. CW1 who is the mother of the deceased and CW 2 who is the police Inquiry officer. The learned Tribunal decided the issues framed in favour of the claimant and held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as calculated below relying upon the various Judgments of the Supreme Court : As such the compensation was calculated as follows : (1) Annual income 39591 x 12 = 475,092 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect 475092 x 50 = 237546 100 (3) Loss of income 475092+237546x17x2 3 = 80,76,564 (4) Loss of spousal and parental Consortium 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses 15,000 (6) Loss of Estate 15,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life 1,00,000 (8) For pain and suffering 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 84,06,564/- (Rupees Eighty four lakhs six thousand sixty four) only. 13. The evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal shows that the deceased had died when the vehicle B/R No.AS-01-DD-9295 (LPK Tipper) driven by Altab Hussain Laskar, met an accident at Hunthar Veng, Vaivakawn Company Peng-Sairang road. The said vehicle also ran over and dashed into one Lalrinfela S/o Lalvulmawii who was walking on the footpath. The very fact that the driver had gone off the road and ran over the deceased who was walking on the footpath, without there being any other reason for the same, like mechanical failure etc., clearly proves the fact that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company that rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle B/R NO.AS-01-DD-9295 (LPK Tipper) was not proved, is belied by the fact that the accident vehicle ran over the deceased who was walking on the footpath without there being reasonable explanation for the same. The Inquiry officer CW2 had accordingly registered a case against the said driver. Vaivakawn P/S C/No. 106/18 dt. 30.06.2018 u/s 279/304(A)/337 IPC. 14. The Inquiry officer CW2 had accordingly registered a case against the said driver. Vaivakawn P/S C/No. 106/18 dt. 30.06.2018 u/s 279/304(A)/337 IPC. 14. Regarding the point raised by the Appellants that the region covered for the Goods Permit of AS 01 DD 9295, issued by Kamrup RTO, is All Assam only while the accident occurred in Mizoram which was outside the permitted region for the said vehicle, it is seen that this was not a part of the pleadings before the learned Tribunal and no was a issue framed on this point by the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent however, has produced and exhibited a document showing that a permit has been issued by Govt. of Assam, Office of the State Transport Authority, Assam Guwahati dated 15.06.2018 permitting the goods vehicle to travel route from Guwahati to Aizawl and the same has been made a part of the record and marked as ‘X’. This was not challenged by the Appellant thus this point needs no further discussion. 15. Regarding the quantum for compensation to be awarded to the Claimant, that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death in the fatal accident. The Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra) has held that “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 16. In the present case it is seen that the decease is survived by his parents and 5 siblings. CW1 is the mother of the deceased is aged 60 years, a permanent resident of Kawrtethawveng, Mamit District. She has deposed that the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and they are living from hand to mouth since their source of income has been stopped. That her husband had become permanently ill due to chronic ulcer and could no longer work in the fields. She has however in her cross examination she has explained that all the siblings of the deceased have reached the age of majority. Her eldest daughter is years of 40 years of age and the deceased is her third eldest child. She also stated in her cross examination that two of her children are still pursuing their studies. Except for the statement of the claimant no.1/ CW1 no other evidence has been adduced. Her eldest daughter is years of 40 years of age and the deceased is her third eldest child. She also stated in her cross examination that two of her children are still pursuing their studies. Except for the statement of the claimant no.1/ CW1 no other evidence has been adduced. However the credibility of her evidence has not been put in doubt and the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance C.Ltd - vs- Nanu Ram (supra) while citing the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors( supra) case allowed 1/3 as personal and living expenses for the deceased bachelor and held that “ Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and the respondent No. 2 an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependants of the deceased and made a deduction of 1/3 rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.” 17. This court is of the view that on considering that the parents of the deceased are aged both 60 years of age and above, that the Claimant 2 /father of the deceased is said not to be able to work in the fields due to ill health, that the deceased belong to a family who are living in a rather remote village, Kawrtethawveng of Mamit District, that the elder sisters are unmarried and that two of the younger siblings of the deceased are still pursuing their studies, it can be rightly concluded that they are all dependants of the deceased thus the learned tribunal has rightly made the deduction of 1/3 as personal and living expenses for the deceased bachelor. 18. The Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. LTD -vs- Pranay Sethi (supra) which is a five judges Bench decision has also held that ”therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 19. In Magma General INS Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alais Chuhru (supra) while referring to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi (supra) the Supreme Court has also held that “The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.” 20. There is however no provision for payment of compensation in respect of “loss of love and affection” and Loss of expectation of life” in the Apex Court decision in Pranay Sethi & Ors(supra). This court in its Judgment and order in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs, V, Siami MAC Appeal No.12/2019 and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalremmawii & ors,MAC App. No.15 of 2018 have also not allowed compensation under the mentioned heads in view of the Apex Court decision in Pranay Sethi & Ors( supra). 21. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra) has also held that the future prospects of the deceased, who is below 40 years of age, would have to be calculated on the basis of 40% of his income. 22. Regarding the income of the deceased Lalrinfela the gross salary of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal wherein transport allowance (TPAL) amounting to Rs.1800/- has been included. The Learned Counsel has not made out any grounds why this should not be included in his gross salary. 23. In light of the above discussion, the Respondent Nos. 22. Regarding the income of the deceased Lalrinfela the gross salary of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal wherein transport allowance (TPAL) amounting to Rs.1800/- has been included. The Learned Counsel has not made out any grounds why this should not be included in his gross salary. 23. In light of the above discussion, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are entitled to the following amounts: As such the compensation was calculated as follows : (1) Annual income 39591 x 12 = 475,092 (2) Addition of 40% of future prospect 475092 x 40 = 190036 100 (3) Loss of income 475092+190036x17x2 3 75,38,117 (4) Loss of spousal and parental Consortium 80000 (Rs.40000 for each Parent) (5) Funeral Expenses 15,000 (6) Loss of Estate 15,000 TOTAL 76,48,117 24. The appellant Insurance Company is accordingly directed to pay to the respondents /Claimants Rs. 76,48117/- (Rupees Seventy six lakhs forty eight thousand one hundred and seventeen) only, along with interest @7% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e 17.09.2018 till final payment is made with the Presiding officer, MACT Aizawl. 25. Registry is to release the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant Insurance Company. 26. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 02.12.2019 passed in MACT case No.44 of 2018 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCR.