Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The New Indian Assurance Company ... vs Seema Sarkar & Ors on 22 December, 2021
26 22.12.
AGM 2021
RKB
Ct
F.M.A. 275 of 2019
07 With
CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7116 of 2018)
The New Indian Assurance Company Ltd.
Versus
Seema Sarkar & Ors.
Mr. Rajesh Singh
... for the appellant.
Ms. Sima Ghosh
... for the respondents.
Learned advocates for both the parties are ad
idem on the point that the instant appeal may be
disposed of giving a go by to the technicalities involved
in the process.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
appellant/ insurance company that the appeal may be
disposed of on the basis of materials furnished by
both the parties to this case, which is not opposed by
the learned advocate representing the claimants.
When learned advocates for both the parties are
agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant
appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.
This is an appeal of Insurance Company and is
directed against the judgement and award dated 15th
May, 2018, passed by Ld. Judge, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Suri at Birbhum,
in M.A.C. Case No.80 of 2015, on a claim under
2
Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, granting an award
to the tune of Rs.14,70,000/- to the dependents of the
deceased, namely, 'Jhinuk Sarkar', for a vehicular
accident occurred on 3rd March, 2015, by reason of
involvement of vehicle No.WB-57/7928 in
consequence of rash and negligent driving.
Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company primarily disputes the
quantum of compensation assessed by the Ld.
Tribunal on two grounds. Insurance Company
submits that the Learned Court below has erred in
law in considering the income of the 19 years old
victim, a student of B. Tech., 2nd Year at Bengal
Institute of Technology and Management, at Rs.
10,000/-per month. Secondly, deceased being
unmarried, the deduction for personal expenses
should have been 50% of victim's income, and not
1/3rd, as decided by the Ld. Tribunal.
Per contra, Ms. Ghosh, the Learned Advocate
for the respondents /claimants submits that the
award passed by the Learned Tribunal is just and
further prays for consideration of future prospect of
the deceased.
Ms. Ghosh further submits that though a COT
application has not been taken out as yet, but the
claimants should have been granted 'future prospect'
3
in view of the decision of Apex Court rendered in the
case of Surekha and others Vs Santosh and others
reported in 2020 (2) TAC 44 SC.
On the issue of monthly income, it appears that
Apex Court in the case of Navjot Singh Vs Harpreet
Singh and Others, in exercise of its authority
available to Apex Court held notional income of an
Engineering student at Rs.10,000/- per month,
without equating a student pursuing Engineering
Degree Course with minimum wages admissible to an
unskilled worker. In another case of G.
Ravindranath @ R. Chowdhary -Vs.- E. Srinivas &
Anr. reported in 2013 (4) TAC 849 SC the income of
a 19 years old student of PUC, 2nd year, who used to
assist his parents in agricultural works, and also in
vending milk to the customers, was held to be
Rs.3,500/- per month. Similarly, in the case of
Arvind Kumar Mishra -Vs- New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (4) TAC 385 SC the income
of a final year engineering student of a reputed
college, with brilliant academic record, having passed
examinations with distinction, was held to be
Rs.5,000/- per month.
Upon seeing such referred judgments as
discussed hereinabove, this court is of the view that
realistic approach has to be applied in the given
4
circumstances of the case for a second year
engineering girl student, who left this world being a
victim of road accident, without being fully blossomed.
For the peculiarity of circumstances involved in this
case, for special features of this case, and after
applying a reasonable approach, if an amount of
Rs.6,000/- per month for a second year B. Tech.
Student, who became a victim of road traffic accident
in 2015, is assessed as income on a claim under
Section 166 of M.V. Act, the same does not appear to
be excessive and exorbitant also.
The second year girl student pursuing B. Tech.
cannot be equated with an unskilled worker having no
stable income for all purposes.
This observation is made upon consideration of
the peculiar circumstances involved in this case, and
for special features of this case, which neither can be
generalized in any other cases, nor can be
straightjacketed in any manner whatsoever.
Having considered the submissions, thus
advanced by both the parties, and also taking note of
the judgments referred hereinabove, and bearing in
mind the guidelines prescribed in the cases of Smt.
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
5
Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 along
with the precedence of this Court, it appears that
there is scope for revisiting the award upon due
consideration of the income, erroneously assessed by
the Tribunal.
Since 1/3 as personal expenses of the deceased
has been deducted, which in view of decision rendered
in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra), the
appellant/insurer is justified in submitting that 50%
of the victim's income towards personal expenses of
the deceased should have been deducted instead of
1/3, as erroneously made by the Tribunal.
At the same time, this court does not prefer to
become hyper-technical in refusing the claim of the
claimants so as to make the awarded sum to be just
and proper, even in the absence of COT being filed for
the purpose.
For assessing the just compensation, future
prospect to the tune of 40% on the income of the
deceased so assessed, should also be added.
Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal
is thus modified to the extent mentioned hereinabove
and recalculated as hereinunder :
Particulars Amounts (Rs.)
Monthly Income 6,000/-
Add 40% income for future prospect 8,400/-
(Rs.2,400/-)
Yearly Income 1,00,800/-
6
50% deduction for personal expenses 50,400/-
Multiplier (18) 9,07,200/-
Collective General damages 30,000/-
------------
Total 9,37,200/-
---------------
Mr. Singh submits that a total sum of
Rs.18,44,417/- is deposited by insurance company,
by way of two separate deposits of Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.18,19,417/- respectively, with the Registrar
General of this Court.
Accordingly, from the above deposit, a sum of
Rs.9,37,200/- along with 6% p.a. interest on the
same, to be calculated from the date of filing of claim
application till the date of payment, may be disbursed
to the claimants in accordance with law and in the
manner and proportion as per the award.
Liberty is given to claimants to make proper
approach to Registrar General for release of such
modified award. Claimants/respondents shall furnish
particulars of their Bank details as also proof of
identity with the Registrar General of this Court as
expeditiously as possible.
Upon deposit of such details, the Registrar
General is directed to pay the said sum directly in the
bank account of the claimants through RTGS/NEFT.
Such payment to claimants must be made within four
weeks from the date of receipt of the Bank details
from the claimants/respondents.
The Learned Registrar General is further
directed to refund the entire balance deposit with
interest accrued, to the insurance company within a
period of four weeks.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal
is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of.
There will 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.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)
