Smt. Supriti Chatterjee & Ors vs H.D.F.C. Ergo Gic Ltd. & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4428 Cal

27.08.2021
  ss
                               F.M.A. 261 of 2014
                                 ( Via Video Conference )

                            Smt. Supriti Chatterjee & ors.
                                         Vs.
                            H.D.F.C. ERGO GIC Ltd. & anr.


                   Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal
                                       ...For the Appellants/claimants
                   Mr. Rajesh Singh
                                ... For the respondent No.1/Insurance Co.

The appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 27th day of June, 2012 passed by the Learned

Special Judge cum Additional District Judge, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Durgapur in M.A.C. case no.

62 of 2011/50 of 2009 on a claim under section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one 40 years

old 'Barun Kumar Chatterjee' in a road accident dated

January 25, 2009. The deceased was a permanent

employee of 'Durgapur Steel Plant'.

Various points have been raised by the claimants

in the instant appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants

that they were not granted any amount under 'future

prospect'. Claimants submit that they were not given

Rs.70,000/- under the full component of 'general

damages'. Claimants also point out that the learned

Judge erred in not granting 'just compensation' and

wrongfully restricted the compensation to Rs.22,00,000/-

which was mentioned as 'claim amount' by the claimants,

in the claim application. Accordingly, it was argued that a

lesser quantum of compensation has been wrongfully

awarded by the Tribunal.

Per contra, the learned Advocate representing the

Insurance Company argues that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the award is just and

reasonable and there is no further scope of enhancement

of the same. Mr. Singh submits that the claimants have

received the amount as prayed for in the claim

application and therefore no further enrichment is

required to be done to the said claimants.

Considering the judgements of Smt. Sarla Verma

& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680 and also Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir

Singh & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, I find

substance in the arguments of the appellants.

Considering the age of 40 years of the victim, the 30%

addition of income on account of 'future prospect' of the

deceased is justified. Claimants are also entitled to

Rs.70,000/- under collective heads of general damages. It

is now well settled that there is no restriction that

Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount

exceeding the claim 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 Salary                           Rs.25,212/-
   Annual Salary                         Rs.3,02,544/-
   Add 30% future prospect
       (Rs.90,763/-)                     Rs.3,93,307/-
   Less 1/3rd for personal expenses
        (Rs.1,31,102/-)                Rs.2,62,205/-
   Multiplier '15'                    Rs.39,33,075/-
   Add 'General Damages'                 Rs.70,000/-

TOTAL Principal Compensation Rs.40,03,075/-

   LESS - awarded by Tribunal and
         paid by insurer          Rs.22,00,000/-
   BALANCE (enhancement)              Rs.18,03,075/-

The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded

amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest in terms of

the direction of the tribunal. Accordingly, the balance

enhanced sum of Rs.18,03,075/- would become payable

to the appellants by the Insurance Company together

with interest assessed at the rate of 6 per cent 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. Advocate for the

Appellants will forward the bank account details of the

appellants within a fortnight from date to Advocate for the

insurance company. The payment shall be made to the

claimants' bank accounts directly, 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 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, on priority basis.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)