JUDGMENT & ORDER : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R. Goswami for the appellants and learned Counsel Mr. A.N. Das for the respondent no.2. 2. The appellants in this case are Sri Lakheswar Deka and Sri Apurba Deka who were the claimants in the original MAC Case No.84/2018 whereas, respondents in this case are Smt Geeta Das, owner-cum-driver of vehicle bearing registration no.AS-21-E-8644 and United India Insurance Company Limited respectively. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Member, MACT no. 2, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No.84/2018 awarding an amount of Rs.7,67,000/- along with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 4. It is contended that the learned Tribunal had committed manifest error in law as well in facts in not considering the case in its proper perspective as the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence on record as well as the documents submitted by the appellants/claimants. It is contended that the appellant/claimant no.2 in his evidence specifically submitted that his deceased mother, namely, Bhadra Deka apart being a competent house wife was also employed as a worker in the manufacturing and packaging drinking water unit of M/S Golden Beverages situated at Dongarbori Jagiroad, in the district of Morigaon and was earning around Rs 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only per month. As a house wife, her most essential selfless service towards the family was undervalued at a meager amount of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month by the learned Tribunal. 5. It is also contended that appellants/claimants had exhibited the employment certificate (exhibit no.4) to substantiate that the deceased late Bhadra Deka was working in the manufacturing and packaging drinking water unit, but, the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration, her income and passed the award wherein the quantum of compensation was assessed at a much lower rate. The appellants have also assailed the loss of consortium at a meager amount of Rs 44,000/-(Rupees forty four thousand). It is also contended that the Judgment and Award is highly speculative and lacks rational basis and is thus liable to be set aside. 6. The appellants have also assailed the loss of consortium at a meager amount of Rs 44,000/-(Rupees forty four thousand). It is also contended that the Judgment and Award is highly speculative and lacks rational basis and is thus liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer laid stress in his argument that the quantum of compensation is at par with the accident which occurred in the year 2017 and thus the quantum was awarded accordingly. Moreover, learned Tribunal has not under valued the role of a mother and has correctly observed that “role of a lady towards her family cannot be measured in monetary terms. She has multifarious roles to play as a mother, as a wife and many more. She is not working for some financial benefit but it is her affection, sincerity and care towards her family that keeps her working round the clock.” Thus, her role has been held at a high pedestal. It was further argued on behalf of the insurer that the financial background of the claimants, the type of household has not been brought on record by leading evidence 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. The genesis of the case was that on 08-11-2017 at about 03:30 P.M., the victim Bhadra Deka was travelling on a Motorcycle bearing registration No.AS- 21-E-8644 from her residence towards Morigaon town as a pillion rider. On the way, when the said Motorcycle reached Bagjap near Namghar, owing to rash and negligent manner of riding by rider, the Motorcycle met with an accident. As a result, the pillion rider Bhadra Deka was tossed over on the road and she sustained grievous injuries on her person and died during her treatment in the hospital. 9. An FIR relating to the aforesaid incident was lodged which was registered as Jagiroad P.S. Case No.461/ 2017 under Sections 279 /304(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). Charge sheet was even submitted in connection with this case against the driver of the vehicle. At the time of accident, victim was aged about 35 years and she was a housewife and her monthly income was Rs.7,000/-. Thus the case was brought up by the claimants no.1, husband and claimant no.2, son of the deceased. 10. Charge sheet was even submitted in connection with this case against the driver of the vehicle. At the time of accident, victim was aged about 35 years and she was a housewife and her monthly income was Rs.7,000/-. Thus the case was brought up by the claimants no.1, husband and claimant no.2, son of the deceased. 10. The opposite party nos.1 and 2 contested the proceeding wherein the insurer, opposite party no. 2 pleaded that the case is not maintainable and no cause of action arose and thus the claim petition was liable to be rejected. The insurer has questioned the age, occupation, employment and income of the deceased. The insurer has averred that no accident took place on 08-11-2017 at about 02:30 P.M. at Bagjap near Namghar under Jagiroad Police Station due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooty bearing Registration No.AS-21-E- 8644. No police report, no FIR and no Charge Sheet was submitted along with the petition. No medical report was submitted and as such this fact was to be proved as per the provisions of law. 11. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “(i) Whether on 08-11-2017, at about 03:30 P.M., at Bagjap near Naamghar, under Jagiroad Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-21-E-8644 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused death to Bhadra Deka ? (ii) If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is liable to pay the compensation amount? 12. The evidence-in-affidavit of claimant No.2 Arup Deka, PW-1 who is the son of the deceased and the exhibited documents substantiates the claim whereas the opposite party No.2/ insurer did not adduce any evidence. 13. It was held by the learned Tribunal that it can be deduced from the evidence and cross examination that at the time of the incident, respondent No.1, Smt Geeta Das was riding the scooty and PW-1’s mother was a pillion- rider. Smt Geeta Das was riding the scooty in a rash and negligent manner and mother of PW-1 Bhadra Deka was travelling on the scooter bearing registration No.AS-21-E-8644 from her home to Morigaon town. The scooty directly hit a stray cow and toppled down on the road. Smt Geeta Das was riding the scooty in a rash and negligent manner and mother of PW-1 Bhadra Deka was travelling on the scooter bearing registration No.AS-21-E-8644 from her home to Morigaon town. The scooty directly hit a stray cow and toppled down on the road. This resulted in the accident and his mother sustained grievous head injuries. Due to her critical condition, she was shifted to GNRC, Guwahati where she was declared as dead. 14. It was further held by learned Tribunal that it could be deciphered from the evidence of P.W.1, that he was not an eye-witness to the accident. He has clearly alleged that the scooty was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Ext.1 form-54 identifies the offending vehicle with reference to Jagiroad P.S. Case No.461 of 2017 u/s 279/304(A) IPC. Charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. The learned Tribunal has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Godavari Devi Sharma & Ors Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors reported in 2012 (4) GLT 516, wherein it has been observed that Tribunal is not expected to search for proof or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, rather the tool is preponderance of probability for assessment of evidence. It was further held by the tribunal that if the evidence of P.W.1 is assessed, it appears that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which endangered human life. It was also observed that the postmortem report marked as Exihibit-3 indicates that the death of mother of P.W.1 was not a natural death, but due to injuries sustained by her at the time of the accident. Therefore, it was held the accident is the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending two wheeler. 16. It was also held by the learned Tribunal that Bhadra Deka died at the age of 49 years as is evident from the post mortem report. The multiplier adopted was 13 after ascertaining her age to be 49 years. However, the learned Tribunal did not accept the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time or prior to the accident. After considering the standard of living and the prevailing situation in the year 2018, it was held that income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month. 17. However, the learned Tribunal did not accept the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time or prior to the accident. After considering the standard of living and the prevailing situation in the year 2018, it was held that income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- per month. 17. Reverting back to this instant case, it is held that Exhibit-4 was correctly not accepted by the learned Tribunal. The income is not quoted in Exhibit-4. Moreover, PW-1 has stated his mother’s income was Rs. 10,000/- per month whereas in the petition, her income is quoted as Rs.7000/- per month. 18. Now the point for determination is whether the learned Tribunal has erred by dismissing the claimants’ submission that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and assessed the loss of dependency by considering the income of the deceased @ Rs.5000/- per month. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal and ors vs. National Insurance Company and others , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 218 , wherein it has been held in paragraph 65 as quoted herein below: “ 65. For the reasons aforesaid, while agreeing with the views of brother Singhvi, J., I would humbly add, that time has come for the Parliament to have a rethinking for properly assessing the value of homemakers and householders work and suitably amending the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and other related laws for giving compensation when the victim is a woman and a homemaker. Amendments in matrimonial laws may also be made in order to give effect to the mandate of Article 15(1) in the Constitution.” 20. The learned counsel for the appellants has further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and ors-vs- The State of Bihar and ors reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 , wherein it has been observed in paragraph 10 as quoted herein below: “ 10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re- determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs.50,000/- towards the conventional figure.” 21. The learned counsel for the insurer has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey & Ors.–vs- Girish Pandey & anr . reported in (2025) 2 SCC 145 , wherein it has been held in paragraph nos. The learned counsel for the insurer has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey & Ors.–vs- Girish Pandey & anr . reported in (2025) 2 SCC 145 , wherein it has been held in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 as quoted herein below: “ 7.It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms. 8.Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, it appears to us that the monthly income of the deceased, at the relevant time, could not be less than Rs.4,000/-p.m. or so. However, instead of calculating the compensation under different heads, and also keeping in mind the fact that the appellants and the respondents are closely related, and the delinquent vehicle was not insured, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal in part to the extent that the appellants are granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs). Since the respondents have already paid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the appellants, the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid by them within six weeks, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest as awarded by the Tribunal.” 22. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Wadhwa and others (supra), Arun Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Arvind Kumar Pandey & Ors (supra). 23. In the instant case, PW-1 has stated that his mother was working at Golden Beverages with an average income of about Rs. 10,000/-. No evidence has been adduced and no salary slip has been submitted in support of her income and the learned Tribunal had assessed the monthly income @ Rs. 5000/- per month. The accident had occurred also in the year 2017. 24. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. The age of deceased was also calculated correctly on the basis of the Post-mortem report. 25. 5000/- per month. The accident had occurred also in the year 2017. 24. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. The age of deceased was also calculated correctly on the basis of the Post-mortem report. 25. I have taken a cue from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadha(supra) and I have considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- instead of Rs. 5000/-. Thereafter, I record my concurrence to the decision of the Learned Tribunal. The other conventional heads have been correctly calculated by the Learned Tribunal. 26. I have also considered the escalation of prices of goods and services owing to the rate of inflation, which cannot be ignored at all. It was observed in Lata Wadha(supra) that the minimum monthly income of a house wife who is in reality a homemaker ought to be estimated @ Rs.3000/- per month, which is indeed a modest assessment. The accident of Lata Wadha’s case relating to devastating fire which resulted in the death of several factory employees and their children took place on 03.03.1989. The high rate of inflation in this Country is noticeable and in the present case, the deceased met with the incident on 08.11.2017. Considering the span of time and high escalation price of goods in this Country commencing from 1989 upto 2013, the monthly income of the deceased can be estimated to be at a moderate rate of Rs. 6000/-. It is held that the compensation under different heads requires no interference. One third of the monthly income is deducted from Rs.6000/- as the family members of the deceased family comprised of three members. As the deceased was between the age of 40-50, 25% is added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The deceased has been rd survived by two family members and therefore 1/3 is deducted from the personal expenses. Therefore the annual dependency is Rs.60,000/-. The multiplier in this case is 13. As this court has not interfered with the other heads calculated and apportioned by the learned Tribunal, the total compensation tantamounts to Rs.8,97,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand). 27. Therefore the annual dependency is Rs.60,000/-. The multiplier in this case is 13. As this court has not interfered with the other heads calculated and apportioned by the learned Tribunal, the total compensation tantamounts to Rs.8,97,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand). 27. The United Insurance Company Limited i.e. the Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,97,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand) with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 28. The appeal is partly allowed. 29. Send back the trial court records. 30. Parties to bear their own costs.