Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
26 2021 Singha Murmu & Ors vs 5 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 23 August, 2021
Ct.
No. 23.8 F.M.A.T. 1183 of 2016
26 2021 Singha Murmu & Ors.
Vs.
5 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
akb ( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy ...For the Appellants/Claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
Re.: IA No. 1 of 2018 (Old No. C.A.N. 8780 of 2018.
Since the original application is not found in the
file, photostat copy of the application for condonation of
delay is taken on record by treating the same as original one.
This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the instant appeal.
On perusal of the pleadings, this Court is satisfied
that the causes shown for delay in filing of the appeal is
sufficient and prayer for condonation of delay should be
allowed.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of
delay stands allowed.
Re.: F.M.A.T. 1183 of 2016
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated February 26, 2016 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur, in M.A.C.
Case No. 78 of 2015.
Mainly two points have been raised by the
appellants/claimants in the instant appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that
claimants/appellants were not granted any amount as 'future
prospect'. Appellants/claimants also submitted that they
were erroneously given Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs. 70,000/-
under different heads of general damages. Accordingly, it
has been argued on behalf of the appellants/claimants that
lesser quantum of compensation has been wrongfully
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Per contra Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned Counsel,
representing the respondent Insurance Company argues that
the award is just and reasonable and there is no scope of
enhancement of the award. He further submits that the
learned Tribunal committed error in law while applied
multiplier 17 instead of 16 since the deceased was 35 years
old.
Considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma & Ors. -Vs.- Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -Vs.- Pranay
Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, I find substance in
the submissions of the appellants/claimants and they are
justified in praying 40% addition on the account of ' future
prospect' on the income of the deceased since the deceased
35 years old and also justified in praying Rs.70,000/-
instead of Rs.9,500/- on account of general damages.
However, since the deceased was 35 years old the
appropriate multiplier shall be 16 instead of 17, as applied by
the tribunal.
Accordingly, the impugned award is required to
be modified and recalculated in the following manner :
Monthly income Rs. 6,000/-
Yearly income Rs. 72,000/-
Less: 1/3 deduction Rs. 48,000/-
(72000-24000)
40% future prospect Rs. 19,200/-
(48000X40%)
Total loss of income Rs. 67,200/-
Age 35 Multiplier 16 Rs.10,75,200/-
(67200X16)
General damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total compensation Rs.11,45,200/-
Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,25,500/-
Compensation payable Rs. 3,19,700/-
Mr. Roy acknowledges that the appellants /
claimants received the entire awarded sum of Rs.8,25,500/-
along with interest in terms of the direction of the learned
Tribunal. Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of
Rs.3,19,700/- would become payable to the
appellants/claimants by the respondent Insurance company
together with interest assessed @ 6% per annum on and from
the date of filing of the claim application till the date of
payment.
The respondent Insurance Company is hereby
directed to pay Rs.3,19,700/- with 6% interest per annum on
and from the date of filing claim application till the payment
made directly to the bank account of the appellants/claimants
within a period of 45 days from date.
It is made it clear that all the payments shall be
made through NEFT/RTGS to the bank accounts of the
appellants/claimants and for such purpose the Counsel for
the appellants/claimants shall furnish bank accounts
particulars of the appellants/claimants to the Counsel for the
Insurance Company within two weeks.
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.)
