JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Nalbari, in MAC Case No.240 (Injury)/2017, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2020, the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari, has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.8,57,900/- being the compensation in favour of the respondent No.1/claimant within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on 23.10.2017. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as under:- “The respondent No.1, namely, Haidar Ali met with an accident on 02.09.2017 at about 3:30 p.m. at Kekankuchi Chowk while he was proceeding through Bartola-Barnibari PWD Road with his friend Issha Haque on a motorcycle. On their way, at Kekankuchi Chowk, one auto rickshaw, bearing No.AS-14C-4826, which was driven at a high speed and negligently, dashed against the motorcycle. In the said accident, the respondent No.1/claimant and his friend sustained grievous injuries and they were taken to Mukalmua PHC, from where they were referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), but from the GMCH he was taken to Guwahati Neurological Research Centre (GNRC) Hospital and he received treatment there from 02.09.2017 till 09.09.2017 as indoor patient. In connection with the said accident, Mukalmua P.S. Case No.349/2017 was registered. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein filed one claim petition under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending auto rickshaw claiming a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- under different heads. The respondent No.1 herein becomes permanently disabled due to the accident which affects his future prospect also. The appellant herein contested the said petition by filing written statement. The owner and driver of the said auto rickshaw did not contest the petition. The appellant herein had taken a stand that the petition is not maintainable and the statements and averment made in the claim petition are false and the insurer of the motorcycle was not impleaded in the case. The owner and driver of the said auto rickshaw did not contest the petition. The appellant herein had taken a stand that the petition is not maintainable and the statements and averment made in the claim petition are false and the insurer of the motorcycle was not impleaded in the case. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed following issues:- (i) Whether the claimant got injury on 02.09.2017 at about 3:30 p.m. at Kekankuchi Chowk due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle No.AS-14C-4826? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for, and if so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) To what other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to? Thereafter, taking the evidence of the claimant and hearing learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.8,57,900/- as compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds:- (i) That the learned Member failed to appreciate the fact that in absence of any reliable evidence to prove the income of the claimant, who was alleged to be a mason, the income cannot be presumed to be Rs.12,000/- per month and this finding of the learned Member suffers from non-application of mind, as at the relevant point of time the claimant was barely 21 years old and at such an young age one cannot become a skilled person like a mason. (ii) The learned Member has also failed to appreciate that the claimant failed to prove the occupation and the income from that occupation. He did not adduce any convincing evidence to prove his income. In absence of any reliable evidence, oral or documentary to prove the income of the claimant, the learned Member ought not to have considered the income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month. (iii) The learned Member erred in awarding 40% towards addition of future prospect in as much as an addition is applicable only in cases where there is likelihood of actual loss of future earning because common injuries like fracture do not always impact income and such an erroneous addition towards future prospect of the claimant had led to overcompensation to the claimant. Under such circumstances, it is contended to quash the impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2020. 5. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved only by the finding of the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari, in respect of monthly income of the claimant. Mr. Goswami submits that at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2017, the age of the claimant was 21 years and he claimed his profession as mason, but he could not produce any document in support of his profession and also in respect of his income. And referring to a notification issued by the Labour Commissioner, Assam, vide Memo No.MWC.3/93/Pt-II/13408-09, dated 13.12.2018, Mr. Goswami submits that at the relevant point of time, the income of a semi-skilled worker was Rs.8,922/- and a skilled clerical worker was Rs.11,152/- and in view of the aforementioned notification, the learned Member ought to have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.8,600/- and the learned Member without considering the aforesaid aspect has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- and such a finding being recorded without any evidence and without any documentary proof is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and award. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant supported the impugned judgment and award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari. Mr. Krishnatraya further submits that the respondent No.1 herein in the claim petition and also in his evidence-on-affidavit has clearly stated that his monthly income is Rs.12,000/- and his profession is mason and such evidence of the claimant could not be rebutted in cross-examination by the appellant herein and as such, the present appeal is bereft of merit and it is contended to dismiss the same. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also the evidence so adduced before the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari. 8. It appears from the claim petition at clause No.3 that the age of the claimant was 23 years and by profession he is a mason and his monthly income is Rs.12,000/- and in his evidence-on-affidavit also he categorically stated that he used to earn not less than Rs.12,000/- per month from engaging himself as mason. 8. It appears from the claim petition at clause No.3 that the age of the claimant was 23 years and by profession he is a mason and his monthly income is Rs.12,000/- and in his evidence-on-affidavit also he categorically stated that he used to earn not less than Rs.12,000/- per month from engaging himself as mason. It is a fact that the claimant/respondent No.1 herein has not produced any documentary proof in support of the profession and income, but his evidence in examination-in-chief and also the statement in his claim petition that his occupation is mason and his monthly income is Rs.12,000/- could not be rebutted in cross-examination. The appellant herein only put a suggestion that he did not have monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. 9. It is well settled that in absence of any documentary proof in respect of income of the claimant, the court has to take note of the income of the claimant @ income of a skilled labourer as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Others vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRT, Kolhapur, [2015] ACCI C.R. 265 (SC). In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme has observed as under:- “Thus, the Tribunal and the High Court have committed an error, both on facts and in law in not taking the correct monthly income of both the deceased for computation of loss of dependency, keeping in view the fact that they were carpenters which is the skilled job. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous, as it is not in accordance with the guiding factors laid down by this Court in the catena of cases to arrive at the just monthly income earned by both the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and it has to be properly determined by taking the gross income of both the deceased. The Tribunal and the High Court even in the absence of the salary slip/certificate ought to have taken the monthly salary of both the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m. keeping in view, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notification, wherein, the State of Karnataka on the basis of the said notification for the relevant period, had fixed the minimum wage of the carpenters in their report………” 10. It is worth mentioning in this context, the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Savita vs. Bindar Singh & others, (2014) 4 SCC 505 , wherein, in respect of assessing just compensation Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para No.6 has observed as under:- “6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.” 11. Thereafter, in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 198, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that some guess work is permissible in fixing monthly income of the deceased. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:- “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs. 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month.” 12. In the case in hand, admittedly, the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, has not produced any documentary proof in support of the profession and income. However, his evidence in examination-in-chief and also the statement in his claim petition, he categorically stated by profession he is a Mason. There is no quarrel at the Bar that that mason is a highly skilled job. Besides, he testified in his evidence and also stated in his claim petition that his monthly income is Rs.12,000/-. This piece of evidence could not be dislodged in his cross-examination. Though a suggestion was put to him in this regard, he categorically denied the same. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the appellant herein disputing the claim of the respondent No.1/claimant. Thus, it appears that the finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on the legal evidence on record with regard to the monthly income of the claimant/respondent, as the claimant was doing the skilled job of mason. 13. This being the factual as well as legal position, no fault can be found with the finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal while fixing of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- notwithstanding absence of any documentary proof. Though Mr. 13. This being the factual as well as legal position, no fault can be found with the finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal while fixing of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- notwithstanding absence of any documentary proof. Though Mr. Goswami has referred to a notification regarding the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2018, yet, in absence of any cross-examination to rebut the evidence of the claimant as well as any document to dislodge the categorical statement made in the claim petition, this Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, has however, referred following decisions in a chart, regarding the recent trend of fixing the notional income by Hon’ble Supreme Court, to buttress his submission. The chart is reproduced herein below:- S. No. Citation Income claimed as Income considered by Supreme Court 1. Vimla Devi vs. NIC Ltd.; 2019 ACJ 454 Rs.10,000/- 5000+40%+6% 2. Shantaben vs. National Power Transport; 2019 ACJ 1784 Rs.4,000/- 1800+40%+6% 3. Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian; 2019 ACJ 3011 5000+40%+9% 4. Savita vs. DM, Maharastra SRTC (3- Judge) ; 2018 ACJ 2863 5000+40%+9% 5. Shivraj vs. Rajendra; 2018 ACJ 2755 4500+8% 6. Anil Kumar vs. BM, National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2018 ACJ 2742 4000+8% 7. Nutan Rani vs. Gurmail Singh (3-J); 2018 ACJ 2169 3000+40%+9% 8. Santosh Devi vs. Mahabeer Singh (3- J) ; 2018 ACJ 2436 – Rs.3,500/- 2500+40%+9% 9. Halappa vs. Malik Sab (3-J); 2018 ACJ 686 Rs.10,000/- 4000 10. Munuswamy vs. M.D. Tamil SRTC; 2018 ACJ 740 4000+40% 15. I have carefully gone through the same. Notably, Mr. Goswami learned counsel for appellant has not placed any reliance upon these decisions in respect of any proposition of law laid down therein. He only referred these decisions only to show the trend in fixing quantum of notional income by the court. But, there is well settled principle of law that each case has to be decided on its own merits. This determination of the income is a question of fact and the factual background of the decisions referred by Mr. Goswami which are clearly distinguishable from the facts herein this case. As such, the trend being followed in those decisions referred by Mr. Goswami cannot be followed uniformly in all cases. 16. It is true that compensation cannot be awarded on fanciful ground. Goswami which are clearly distinguishable from the facts herein this case. As such, the trend being followed in those decisions referred by Mr. Goswami cannot be followed uniformly in all cases. 16. It is true that compensation cannot be awarded on fanciful ground. But, in the case in hand, the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence-on-affidavit and also the statement and averment made in the claim petition and such evidence, statement and averment having not been rebutted in cross-examination, this Court is of the view that no interference of the impugned judgment and award, so passed by the learned Tribunal is warranted. 17. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The appellant shall deposit the compensation amount, with interest and after adjusting the amount, if any, paid in the meanwhile, directly in the account of the respondent No.1/claimant by electronic mode of transfer, like NEFT, within one month from the date of this judgment and order. Statutory deposit, if any, made by the appellant, shall be returned forthwith. 18. Send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of the judgment and order. The parties have to bear their own cost.