Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranak Jahan Sufi & Anr vs Akb The Oriental Insurance Co. ... on 2 August, 2021
Ct.
No. 02.8 F.M.A. 1411 of 2018
26 2021 ( Via Video Conference )
Ranak Jahan Sufi & Anr.
10 Vs.
akb The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Ali Imam Shah ...For the Appellants/Claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated March 04, 2016 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1st Court, Purba
Bardhaman, in M.A.C. Case No. 99/375 of 2013.
The claim was filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel for the
appellants/claimants submit that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while not granting 25% additional
income towards future prospect since the deceased was 48
years old as bus conductor.
He further submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while granting Rs.7,500/- instead of
Rs.70,000/- towards general damages.
Counsel for the appellants/claimants further
submits that the learned Tribunal accepted income of the
deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and medical expenditure
was taken as Rs.20,000/-, so there is no scope of
interference.
In reply, Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company submits that the award
passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely just and proper
and there is no scope of interference and/or modification of
the award.
Considering the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also following the practice
of this Court on the point of monthly income, I find
substance in the arguments of the appellants. Since the
accident occurred in the year 2013, in a claim under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of
Rs.4,500/- per month was taken by the learned Tribunal, this
Court is not interfering with it. Appellants are also justified
in praying for 25% additional income towards future
prospect since the deceased was 48 years old and the general
damages shall be taken as Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.7,500/-.
Considering the ratio as decided in Sarala Varma
(Supra) as well as Pranay Sethi (Supra), the award passed by
the Tribunal is modified and recalculated as follows :
Monthly income Rs. 4,500/-
Annual Income (Rs.4,500 X 12) Rs. 54,000/-
25% Additional income towards
Future prospect Rs. 13,500/-
Annual Income (Rs.54,000+13,500) Rs. 67,500/-
Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 22,500/-
Multiplier of 13 (Rs.45,000 X 13) Rs. 5,85,000/-
General Damages Rs. 70,000/-
Medical expenditure Rs. 20,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 6,75,000/-
Mr. Shah acknowledges that his clients have
already received the entire awarded sum of Rs.4,97,500/-
together with interest paid by the Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.1,77,500/-
would become payable to the appellants by the Insurance
Company together with interest assessed at the rate of 6 per
cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the particulars
of their bank accounts to be supplied by the learned Counsel
to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
It is made clear that payments shall be made by
NEFT/RTGS in the same manner and proportion as decided
by the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of.
In view of disposal of the appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of. The concerned
Department is directed to trace out the application and tag
the same with this appeal.
There shall be no further order as to costs.
LCR, if any, may be returned back to the Court
below.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all
formalities, on priority basis.
( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
