Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajmira Bibi Karikar @ Ajmira Bibi & ... vs National Insurance Company Ltd. @ ... on 16 December, 2021
19 16.12.
RKB 2021
Ct
07 F.M.A No. 770 of 2012
F.M.A.T. No. 167 of 2012
With
CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. 9779 of 2017)
(Via Video Conference)
Ajmira Bibi Karikar @ Ajmira Bibi & Ors.
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. @ Anr.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, Adv.
...for the appellants.
Mr. Saswata Bhattacharya, Adv.
... for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate for the
appellants urges before this court for expeditiously
disposal of this appeal, even to the extent of giving a
go by to the rules applicable in the process. He
further submits that necessary documents relevant
for adjudication of the appeal are with the learned
advocate, and the same may be produced in the
interest of ensuring expeditious disposal of this
appeal, which is not opposed by the learned
advocate appearing for the respondents.
When learned advocate for both the parties
are ad idem on the issue urging thereby for
expeditious disposal of this appeal, the court should
not stand in the way. The appeal is thus taken up
for consideration.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the
claimants/appellants impugning the judgment and
award dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge Burdwan in M.A.C.
Case No. 02 of 2009, 344 of 2009 on a claim under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a
vehicular accident occurred on 19 th September,
2009, resulting in death of victim by reason of
involvement of vehicle bearing No. WB 41B/6594
due to rash and negligent driving.
Mr. Banik has preferred this appeal being
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
granted in this case, taking grounds which are three
folds.
Firstly, the learned Tribunal has committed
an error in not granting future prospects to the
claimants as the victim was a 39 years old person, a
hawker by profession, having an income of
Rs.3000/- per month to maintain his dependent
family members. According to Mr. Banik, future
prospects should have been added at the rate of
40% to the income of the deceased.
Secondly, damages under the collective head
though granted to the tune of Rs.9,500/-, but it was
not in consonance with the settled proposition of
law, and thus it should have been assessed of
Rs.70,000/-.
Thirdly, pertaining to multiplier, which
according to Mr. Banik, the Tribunal has misapplied
upon selecting 17 as multiplier erroneously, and it
should have been selected to 15, as multiplier.
Reliance has been placed by Mr. Banik on a
decision rendered in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 to cover the
points raised in this appeal.
Mr. Saswata Bhattacharya, learned advocate
representing respondents/insurance company
limited, submits that Tribunal has rightly assessed
the compensation upon due considerations of the
pros and cons of the case. There lies nothing to be
interfered with, and even for any modification, as
proposed by the appellants. Taking such grounds
the insurance company has proposed for dismissal
of appeal.
Selection of the multiplier to quantify the
award is of highest significance. In the event of a
multiplier being selected erroneously, without
having due regard to the provisions of law, there
cannot be any perfect quantification of the award.
When the victim suffered the accident at his 39
years of age, indisputably the multiplier should
have been selected to 15, instead of 17.
Upon perusal of the materials produced, and
bearing in mind the proposition of law, decided in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as referred by
Mr. Banik, there lies scope for revisiting the
impugned judgment, because a self employed
person cannot be deprived from having appropriate
future prospects. In that view of the matter, there
should have been addition of 40%, as future
prospects to the income of the deceased, for perfect
quantification of the award.
Having considered the rival submissions of
the parties and bearing in mind the settled
proposition of law, as referred hereinabove, the
impugned award needs modification, simply to
make it just, proper and perfect.
The award is thus modified doing necessary
calculations as hereunder:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly income 3,000/-
Annual income 36,000/-
40% additional income towards 14,400/-
future prospect.
Loss of Total annual income 50,400/-
(36,000 + 14,400)
Less 1/3rd deduction 16,800/-
Loss of annual dependency 33,600/-
(50,400-16800)
Multiplier (15) i.e. (33,600 x 15) 5,04,000/-
General damages 70,000/-
_____________
_
Total 5,74,000/-
Less amount received -
4,17,500/-
____________
_
Balance Amount 1,56,500/-
Mr. Banik acknowledges that his clients have
already received a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- together
with interest. The differential/balance amount of
Rs.1,56,500/- together with interest assessed as 6%
from the date of filing of the claim application till
payment shall be paid to the claimants by the
insurance company in the same manner, and
proportion as already decided by the Tribunal
within 45 days from the date of receipt of bank
particulars of the appellants to be supplied by their
counsel to the counsel of insurance company.
The payment shall be made to the claimants
by NEFT/RTGS.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant
appeal bearing No. FMA 770 of 2012 stands
disposed of.
In view of the disposal of appeal, connected
application is also disposed of.
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.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)
