CIVIL APPEAL 190 of 2005 on 31 August 2006

04.10.2021

F.M.A. 1230 of 2007

ss

I.A. CAN 3 of 2012 (old No. CAN 2807 of 2012)

Via Video Conference )

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs.Asha Das & ors.

C.O.T. 26 of 2008Smt. Asha Das & anr. Vs.The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.

Mr. M. P. Chakraborty …For the appellant/insurance Co. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy … For the respondents/claimants/cross objector This appeal is directed against the judgement andaward dated August 31, 2006 passed by the learnedJudge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1[st] Court,Asansol in M.A.C. Case No.190 of 2005 in a claim underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the deathof one 20 years old bachelor ‘Bapi Das’ in a vehicularaccident dated 31.05.2005.

Mr. M. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant/insurance company submitsthat the learned Tribunal committed error in assessingtotal amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- instead ofRs.1,50,000/- without any basis.

Mr. Chakraborty also submits that in view of theinterim order passed in appeal, the appellant/insurancecompany had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before the learnedExecuting Court and also deposited a further sum ofRs.1,00,000/- before the learned Registrar General of thisHon’ble Court.

Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate appearingon behalf of the claimants/respondents opposes the submissions of the appellant/insurance company andsubmits that one cross objection being COT 26 of 2008has been filed against the selfsame award passed by thelearned Tribunal.

Learned Advocate for the claimants/respondentshas challenged the quantum of compensation on theground that learned Tribunal erred in granting the totalcompensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only without anyinterest. It is submitted on behalf of the claimants thatthe learned Tribunal erred in law in not considering themonthly income of Rs.4,200/- of the deceased. Further,the claimants submit that considering the age of thedeceased as 20 years, as it is appearing from the postmortem report being exhibit 4, the appropriate multiplierin the instant case should have been 18. Lastly, theclaimants/respondents also plead that the claimants areentitled to get future prospect on the income of thedeceased along with full components of Rs.30,000/-under the collective heads of general damages.Accordingly, it was argued that lesser quantum ofcompensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.In support of his case, Mr. Roy has relied upon thejudgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofSmt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi TransportCorporation & anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 andin the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. PranaySethi & ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also onthe precedence of this Court on the point of monthly income, I find substance in the arguments of theclaimants/respondent/cross objectors. For the year2005, in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month does notappear to be exorbitant. The claimants are justified inpraying 40% addition on account of future prospect onthe income of the deceased. The learned Judge shouldhave considered the age of the deceased as 20 years inview of the post mortem report and deducted 1/2 onaccount of personal expenses from the income of thedeceased. The appropriate multiplier should also be 18purchase factor and the claimants are entitled to getgeneral damages of Rs.30,000/- for the death of theirbachelor son. The claimants are also entitled to getinterest on the awarded sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from thedate of filing of the claim application till the date ofrespective deposits, at the rate of 6% per annum.

Accordingly, the award passed by the learnedTribunal is modified and recalculated in the followingmanner :- It is submitted that the claimants have earlierreceived Rs.50,000/- in a proceeding under Section 140of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Conclusion

Mr. Roy acknowledges that the claimant no.1,mother of the deceased, has further received a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- from the learned Tribunal in terms of theorder passed in the present appeal. As stated earlier asum of Rs.1,00,000/- is lying deposited in this Court.

Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum ofRs.2,33,600/- would become payable to the respondent/claimant/cross objector no.1, mother of the deceased bythe appellant/insurance company together with interestassessed at the rate of 6% per annum on and from thedate of filing of claim application till the date of payment.

The claimant no.1 being the mother of the deceasedis also given liberty to apply before the Registrar Generalof this Court for withdrawal of the deposited amount ofRs.1,00,000/- along with all accrued interest. On suchapplication for withdrawal being made, the RegistrarGeneral shall transmit the entire deposited amount alongwith accrued interest thereon directly to the bankaccount of the claimant/respondent no.1 as expeditiouslyas possible preferably within four weeks from the date ofreceipt of the bank account details after verifying theveracity and identity of the claimant/respondent no.1.

Accordingly, the appellant/insurance company isfurther directed to pay the differential amount of Rs.2,33,600/- to the claimant/respondent no.1 togetherwith interest assessed at the rate of 6% per annum till thedate of payment. Insurance company is also directed topay the interest on the awarded sum of Rs.2,50,000/- atthe same rate of interest, that is, 6% per annum from thedate of filing of the claim application till date of respectivedeposits within a period of 45 days from the date ofreceipt of the bank account particulars of the claimant.The entire payment is to be made to the claimant no.1being the mother of the deceased only. Learned Advocatefor the claimants will forward the bank account details ofthe claimant no. 1 within a three weeks from date to thelearned Registrar General of this Court and also Counselfor the appellant/insurance company With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal aswell as cross objection is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.

In view of the disposal of this appeal, connectedapplication, if any, is also disposed of. The concernedDepartment is directed to tag the cross objection andapplication, if any, with the main appeal.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, ifapplied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of allformalities, on priority basis.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)