Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dalia Khatun @ Dalia Bibi & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 16 August, 2021
40 16.8.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A.T. 257 OF 2021
--------------
Dalia Khatun @ Dalia Bibi & Ors.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Subhankar Mandal
...For the Appellants/
Claimants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Respondent /
Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 11th December, 2019 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional
District Judge, in MAC Case No. 354 of 2017 (CNR No.
WBWM010081122017) under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation for the death
of one 36 years old 'Sk. Amanul Haque', who died in a
road accident dated May 17, 2017.
The advocate for the appellants/claimants has
challenged the quantum of compensation on the ground
that the tribunal erred in not granting the 'just
compensation' as it wrongfully restricted the
compensation to Rs.10,00,000/-, which was mentioned
as 'claim amount' by the appellants/claimants, in the
claim application. The appellants/claimants also
submitted that they were not granted interest on
compensation amount from the date of passing of the
award. Accordingly, it is argued that a lesser quantum of
compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.
Per contra, learned advocate representing the
insurance company argues that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no further scope of
enhancement of the same. It is also pointed out that the
Court below had committed an error in deducting 1/4th
from the income of the deceased for 'personal expenses' in
spite of the fact that there were three number of
dependent claimants.
Considering the judgements 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 I am of the view that deduction for
personal expenses should have been 1/3rd of deceased's
income. The tribunal however erred in restricting the
compensation amount to Rs.10,00,000/- only. The
judgement of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Anr.
reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, makes it clear that there is
no constraint that the tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. A
court can allow compensation more than the claim made/
shown by the claimants, if the assessment is just and
proper.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount
Monthly Income Rs.5,616/-
Annual Income Rs.67,392/-
Add 40% future prospect
(Rs.26,956/-) Rs.94,348/-
Less 1/3rd for personal expenses
(Rs.31,449/-) Rs.62,899/-
Multiplier '15' Rs.9,43,485/-
Add 'General Damages'
Rs.70,000/- Rs.10,13,485/-
Total Compensation Rs.10,13,485/-
Less - awarded by Tribunal and
paid by insurer Rs.10,00,000/-
Balance (enhancement) Rs.13,485/-
The appellants/claimants acknowledge receipt of
the awarded amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in terms of the
direction of the tribunal. Accordingly, the balance
enhanced sum of Rs.13,485/- would become payable to
the appellants/claimants by the Insurance Company
together with interest assessed @6% per annum on and
from the date of filing of the claim petition within a period
of 45 days from the date of receipt of the bank account
particulars of the appellants/claimants.
If it is found that the appellants/claimants did not
receive interest on the sum of Rs.10,00,000/ which they
have already received, insurer shall pay interest on the
said amount also, at the same rate of 6% per annum,
from the date of filing of claim case till the date of
payment.
Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants will
forward the bank account details of the
appellants/claimants within a fortnight from date to the
learned advocate for the Insurance Company. The
payment shall be made directly in the bank accounts of
the appellants/claimants through NEFT/RTGS, in the
proportion decided by the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of. The concerned
Department is directed to tag the applications, if any,
with the main 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.)
