Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ashadulla Sek vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 23 August, 2021
20 23.8.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A.T. 499 OF 2020
with
I.A. No. CAN 1 OF 2021
--------------
Ashadulla Sek
Vs.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
...For the Appellant/
Claimant.
Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari
...For the Respondent /
Insurance Co.
CAN 1 OF 2021
This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the instant appeal.
On perusal of the pleadings, this Court is satisfied
that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is
sufficient and prayer for condonation of delay should be
allowed.
Accordingly the application for condonation of
delay being CAN 1 of 2021 stands disposed of.
FMAT 499 OF 2020
On consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for
hearing.
The appeal has been filed by the
appellant/claimant against the judgment and award
dated 18th January, 2020 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court - II Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tamluk, in M.A.C. Case
No. 200 of 2013, in a claim under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an accident which took
place on 4th September, 2012.
The main grievance of the appellant/claimant is
that the court below did not grant an adequate amount of
compensation on account of disability, pain, suffering
and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities etc. in spite of the
fact that the 37 years old injured had suffered 70% loss
of earning capacity due to the severe injuries suffered by
him in an accident.
The appellant/claimant claimed Rs.6000/- as his
monthly income before the tribunal but the tribunal did
not consider the same and awarded a lump sum of
Rs.2,26,642/- as a compensation for the 70% disability
suffered by the appellant/claimant as per the Disability
Certificate, issued by the Medical Board, Haldia, S. D.
Hospital. According to the appellant/claimant
Rs.2,06,642/- has been incurred for the purpose of
treatment. The appellant/claimant further points out
that he is also entitled to 40% additional income on
account of future prospect. However, the tribunal erred
in not allowing the same.
The appellant/claimant relies upon the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as
follows :
(1995) 1 SCC 551 : R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest
Control (India) ; (2018) 4 SCC 571 : Jagadish vs. Mohan
& Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 121 : Sarala Verma & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation; (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi.
From the record it is found that the victim had
produced documents in support of his treatment and the
said documents had been marked exhibits by the learned
tribunal.
The insurance company is represented and
opposed the case of the appellant/claimant. It is
submitted by the insurance company that the tribunal
considered the medical bill of Rs.2,06,642/- and the non
pecuniary loss of Rs.20,000/- .
Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
considering the materials on record this Court feels that
an amount of Rs.50,000/- more on account of non
pecuniary loss can be granted to the appellant/claimant
and Rs. 4000/- can be granted as monthly income.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 4,000/-
Annual Income (x 12) 48,000/-
Add future prospects 40% 19,200/
Annual loss of income 67,200/
50% disablement 33,600/
Age 37, Multiplier 15 5,04,000/
Pecuniary loss 5,04,000/
Adding Rs.50000/- more 50,000/
Medical bill + non pecuniary 2,26,642/
Total compensation - 7,80,642/
Tribunal awarded 2,26,642/
Compensation payable 5,54,000/--
The appellant/claimant acknowledges receipt of the
entire awarded amount of Rs.2,26,642/- along with
interest. The balance sum of Rs.5,54,000/- would become
payable to the appellant/claimant by the insurance
company together with interest assessed @6% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim application till
payment within 45 days of receipt of the particulars of the
bank account details of the appellant/claimant to be
supplied by his advocate to the advocate for the
insurance company.
It is made clear that the payments shall be made by
NEFT/ RTGS.
Accordingly, with the above directions the appeal is
disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of. The department
concerned is directed to tag the applications, if any, with
the main appeal.
The department is directed to send down the lower
court records, if arrived, immediately.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all
formalities.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
