JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. and learned counsel Mr. A. Mannaf for the respondents No. 1 to 5. 2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta in connection with MAC Case No. 686/2015. The appellant is aggrieved by the award to the tune of Rs.14,49,600/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Forty Nine Thousand and Six Hundred), which was directed to be paid by the appellant Insurance Company. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claim petition was very vague. It was not discernible whether the accident was between two vehicles or whether the deceased proceeded on foot when the accident took place. It is further contended that the FIR was lodged after 19 (Nineteen) days of the accident and the motorbike in connection with the FIR was seized after three months, which casts a shadow of doubt over the claim. It is further submitted that the owner of the bike and the claimant may be in cohorts as they are from the same village. Much later, at the time of cross-examination of claimant, it could be learnt that her husband met with an accident as he was riding a bike. There was not a hint in the claim petition that the deceased was riding a bike at the time of the accident. No GD entry was registered in the Police Station. It is a settled law that the GD entry and the FIR are on the same footing and as no GD entry relating to the accident on the day of the incident, was entered, this too casts a shadow of doubt over the veracity of the claim. It has to be assumed that the deceased was travelling by bike at the time of the accident as there was no eyewitness to the accident and as the claim petition was vague. 4. The Insurer is also aggrieved by the notional income taken up for calculation of loss of dependency @ Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand). It is submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and at that time, the notional income was calculated at Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month and not Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand). 4. The Insurer is also aggrieved by the notional income taken up for calculation of loss of dependency @ Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand). It is submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and at that time, the notional income was calculated at Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month and not Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand). If the accident was between two motorcycles, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the same to be an incident of contributory negligence, but the entire liability was burdened to the Insurer. It is further submitted that the loss of consortium was taken at a higher rate at Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac), which is against the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company-vs-Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant laid stress in his argument that the accident took place on 11.09.2014 at night at about 9.30 PM. Thus, immediately the deceased was shifted to Barpeta Civil Hospital. It is not possible that in a serious accident, any family member will rush to the police station instead of taking the injured person to the civil hospital. The GD entry registered at the Hospital Police Post (PP) clearly reflects that the GD entry was registered immediately after the accident, i.e., GD entry No. 155, dated 12.09.2014, whereas the accident took place on 11.09.2014. The FIR which was lodged after 19 (Nineteen) days clearly explains and justifies the delay in lodgment of the FIR. It has been categorically mentioned in the FIR that delay was due to the funeral rites observed by the family members. It is a clear case of accident and no suspicion to the conduct of the claimant as alleged by the Insurer is discernible. 6. It has been held by the Tribunal that “the Insurer did not raise any objection and emphasize that a false and a planted case has been brought up. It was held that the argument and the contention of the Insurer could not be sustained for the fact that there is no law that mandates that each and every accident must be reported to police before it is taken care of by a Doctor and the same may not be practicable and humanly possible. It was held that the argument and the contention of the Insurer could not be sustained for the fact that there is no law that mandates that each and every accident must be reported to police before it is taken care of by a Doctor and the same may not be practicable and humanly possible. It was held that the GD entry No. 155 dated 12.09.2014 reveals that the body of the deceased, Sanjit Medhi was immediately taken to the Casualty Department of Barpeta Medical College & Hospital at midnight, i.e. at 12.30 AM. Post Mortem report reveals that the Post Mortem was performed at 10.20 hours and death was the result of coma and was opined to be ante-mortem as a result of head injury caused by blunt force impact. After scrutinizing the documentary evidence and assessing the oral evidence it was held that death of Sanjit Medhi in a motor vehicular accident on 11.09.2014 at Rampur New Chowk and the involvement of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/MA-7391 stands established. It was held that the contention of the Insurer (Opposite Party No.2) that it was a planted case failed to garner any substance. It was also observed by the Tribunal that indeed the involvement of one motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/MA-7391 was ambiguous. It was observed that the claimant CW-1 in her cross-examination stated that her husband was riding a motorcycle at the time of the accident, but the police submitted charge-sheet against the owner of the motorcycle, Opposite Party No. 1. On the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and considering the fact that this as a beneficiary legislation, it was held that the opposite party No. 1 was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/MA-7391 and the motorcycle was the offending vehicle was established. It was held that the Opposite Party No. 1/owner/rider of the motorcycle failed to rebut any substantive evidence that the motorcycle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, considering the age of the deceased and the legal heirs, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant, directing the insurer to pay the compensation and exonerated the owner of the motorcycle from compensation.” 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. Thereafter, considering the age of the deceased and the legal heirs, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant, directing the insurer to pay the compensation and exonerated the owner of the motorcycle from compensation.” 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. The point for determination in this case is that: (i) whether the learned Tribunal has erred by holding the owner of the vehicle responsible for the accident, and; (ii) whether the income was erroneously assessed by the learned Tribunal to be Rs.6000/- instead of the notional income that was prevalent at the point of time. 9. The genesis of the case was that on 11.09.2014, at about 9.30 pm, Sanjit Medhi was proceeding from Rampur New Chowk towards village Rampur Kashkuri Pathar on the correct side of the road. Suddenly, a motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-01/MA-7391 knocked Sanjit Medhi (hereinafter referred as ‘victim or the deceased’) from back side. The motorcycle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was immediately brought to FAAMCH, Barpeta for treatment but he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The body was forwarded for post-mortem. Regarding the accident, a case was registered as Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 252/14, U/S 279/338/304(A) IPC. The claimants, legal heirs being wife, two children and parents of the deceased filed the claim petition for compensation. Apurba Talukdar, the owner and driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/MA-7391 and the insurer of the motorcycle were arrayed as opposite parties no.1 and 2 respectively. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the opposite party no. 1 i.e the owner of the motorcycle, filed written statement and admitted that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent act. The owner had prayed for exoneration as his vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident and as he was holding a valid license at the time of the accident. 10. I have also re-appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary evidence. It has been correctly held by the learned Tribunal that the opposite party i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/MA- 7391 was responsible for the accident. 10. I have also re-appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary evidence. It has been correctly held by the learned Tribunal that the opposite party i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/MA- 7391 was responsible for the accident. The evidence clearly reflects that the accident occurred on 11.09.2014 and immediately, as the victim was in a critical condition, he was shifted to the Barpeta Medical College & Hospital instead of proceeding to the police Station. The GD entry no. 155 / 2014 dated 12.09.2014 is proof enough of the fact that the victim was immediately shifted to the FAA Medical College and Hospital and he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The age was correctly assessed. Exhibit-1 is the FIR which was indeed registered after 19 days of the accident. The reasons of delay has been explained in the FIR, Exhibit-1. The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased Sanjit Medhi who has explained the reasons of delay, that they were busy with the funeral rites of the deceased. 11. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the Insurer that the brother could have easily lodged the FIR after a day or two after the accident. However, the learned Tribunal has accepted that the explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR and no interference is required at this stage. 12. The Accident Information Report marked as Exhibit-2 clearly reflects that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of the incident and the insurance policy was valid up to 06.08.2015 and so was the driving license of the driver, which was valid up to 31.05.2030. In view of the foregoing discussions, I thereby record my concurrence to the decisions of the learned Tribunal. 13. The insurer has however failed to produce the minimum wages prevailing in the State at the time of the incident in the year 2014. The amount of Rs. 6000/- which was considered as the notional income does not appear to be on the higher side nor absurd. Thereby, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the minimum income ought to have been calculated as Rs. 3000/- per month is not accepted and also the argument on the point of apportionment of consortium is not accepted. 14. Thereby, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the minimum income ought to have been calculated as Rs. 3000/- per month is not accepted and also the argument on the point of apportionment of consortium is not accepted. 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) was of the year 2017, whereas the accident in connection with this case was in the year 2014. 15. In terms of the above observation, this appeal is dismissed as the appeal is bereft of merits. 16. Registry to send back the original case records. 17. Parties to bear their own costs.