Kisku Maino Murmu vs United India Insurance Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6555 Cal

22.12.2021
Item No.8
Ct. No.7
CHC
(disposed of)

                                     F.M.A.139of 2021
                                     (Physical Hearing)

                                   Kisku Maino Murmu
                                           Vs.
                     United India Insurance Company Limited & anr.


                      Mr. Subir Banerjee,
                      Mr. Sandip Bandyopadhyay,
                      Mrs. Ruxmini Basu Roy
                                       ...for the appellants/claimants

                      Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari
                                  ...for the respondent no.1/ Insurance
                                                          Company



                      The matter is listed today under the heading "To

                Be Mentioned".

                      Learned advocate for both the parties are ad idem

                on the issue that the instant appeal may be disposed of

                giving a go-by to the technicalities involved in the process

                and the appeal may be instantly disposed of even without

                consulting Lower Court Records.

                      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the

                appellant since the appellant has been suffering from

                financial distress for want of sufficiency of money for her

                sustenance, the appeal may be disposed of on the basis

                of materials furnished by both the parties to this case,

                which is not even opposed by the learned advocate

                representing the Insurance Company/respondent no.1.
                         2




      When learned advocate for both the parties are

agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant

appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.

      The instant appeal has been preferred by the

claimant/appellant impugning the judgement and award

dated 7th December, 2019, passed by the learned Judge,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District

Judge, 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, in the

M.A.C.C.126 of 2018 on a claim under Section 166 of the

M.V. Act, 1988, for the death of one "Lakhi Ram Kisku",

Carpenter by profession, aged about 26 years old in a

road traffic accident, occurred on 14th May, 2018.

      Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for

the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in law

in assessing the income of the deceased carpenter at

Rs.3000/-,   what   should   have   been   considered   at

Rs.6,000/- per month.

      While stressing upon the income of the deceased,

Mr. Banerjee argues that in the year 2018, a carpenter

may be expected to be having an earning of Rs.6,000/-

per month, and which has been established in the oral

evidence already adduced before the Tribunal.

      Admittedly, no documentary evidence has been

adduced in this case.

      The quantification of the award is thus most

improper and as such it can hardly be regarded to be

just and proper, Mr. Banerjee contends.
                         3




      The other ground emphasized during hearing of

this appeal, is that no future prospect has been granted

in this case for due quantification of the award.

      Mr. Banerjee, thus submits that since the victim

suffered accident, when he was 26 years old, the court

below ought to have granted 40% as future prospect

additionally to the income of the deceased.

      Per   contra,     Mr.     Pahari,   learned      advocate

representing   the    Insurance    Company      submits    that

Tribunal has considered every pros and cons of this case

and decided the award most reasonably, and as such

there is no scope for making any interference, at least

doing any modification of the award for the purpose.

      Incidentally,   Mr.     Pahari   argues   that    learned

Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under

the collective heads of general damages, which should

have been restricted to Rs.30,000/-, as the victim died

bachelor.

      Facts

leading to the death of the deceased are not

disputed.

Primarily, two points are urged relatable to the

assessment of the income and the future prospect not

being granted in this case.

Admittedly, the victim died bachelor, when he was

26 years old. He was a carpenter by profession having

substantial income in 2018. In the fitness of the things

and for all practical purposes, it would be most

reasonable if the income of the deceased is assessed at

Rs.5,000/-. In that view of the matter, the income should

be fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

As regards future prospect, upon perusal of the

judgment and upon consideration of the age of the

deceased together with the income of the deceased, as

referred hereinabove, future prospect to the tune of 40%

should be considered in addition to the income of the

deceased.

Having considered the submission of both sides as well

as propositions of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

Pranay Sethi & ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,

and also following the precedents of this Court, this

Court finds substance in the argument advanced by the

learned advocate for the appellant.

As Mr. Pahari in all his fairness has brought to the

notice of the Court that learned Tribunal has erroneously

awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the collective heads of

general damages, instead of Rs.30,000/-, the Court

shares the same view that the general damages granted

should be restricted to Rs.30,000/-, as the deceased

victim died bachelor. Since it is a question of law, this

Court does not prefer to become hypertechnical in doing

necessary modification of the award, so as to make it a

just and proper.

Accordingly, the above order passed by the learned

Tribunal is thus modified to the extent mentioned

hereinbelow and recalculated as follows:

      Particulars                      Amount (Rs.)

      Monthly Income                   Rs.5,000/-
      Annual income                        X 12
                                       Rs.60,000/-

      Add: Future Prospect
      @ 40%                            Rs.24,000/-
                                       Rs.84000/-
      Less:1/2 deduction
      personal
      expenses (Rs.42,000/-)           Rs.42,000/-

      Multiplier 17                          X 17
                                       Rs.7,14,000/-

      Add: General Damages             Rs.30,000/-

Total Principal Compensation Rs.7,44,000/-

      Less: Award of Learned
      Tribunal                         Rs.4,06,000/-

      Balance enhanced amount          Rs.3,38,000/-

The claimant acknowledges the receipt of the

awarded amount of Rs.4,06,000/- in terms of the

direction of the Learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the

balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,38,000/- would

become payable to the appellant by the Insurance

Company together with interest assessed at the rate

of 6% per annum on and from the date of filing of the

claim petition within a period of 30 days from the

date of receipt of the bank account particulars of the

appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant will

forward the bank account details of the appellant

within a fortnight from date to learned advocate of the

Insurance Company. The payment shall be made to

the Bank Account of the appellant directly by

NEFT/RTGS.

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.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)