Rafiya Dafadar & Ors vs Shriram General Insurance Co. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3551 Cal

02.07.2021
  ss
                               F.M.A. 105 of 2021
                                  ( Via Video Conference )

                                Rafiya Dafadar & ors.
                                         Vs.
                       Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.


                   Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
                                         ...For the Appellants/claimants


                   Mr. Rajesh Singh
                                ... For the respondent No.1/Insurance Co.

The appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated December 22, 2017 passed by Learned

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional

District Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in M.A.C

Case No. 99 of 2012, on a claim under section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one 'Saker

Dafdar' in a road accident dated February 9, 2012.

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 the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- of the victim,

considered for by the learned Judge was inadequate.

Further, the claimants were not granted any amount

under 'future prospect'. Claimants argue that in view of 5

numbers of dependents, the deduction for personal

expenses should have been 1/4th of victim's income and

not 1/3rd as deducted by the tribunal. Lastly, the

claimants pleaded that they were erroneously given only

Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.70,000/- under the full

component of 'general damages'. Accordingly, it was

argued that a lesser quantum of compensation has been

wrongfully awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants

however admit that in the instant case, the appropriate

multiplier should have been '14' and tribunal erred in

adopting '15' as the multiplier.

The Insurance Company is represented.

Considering the judgements 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 precedence of

this Court on the point of monthly income, I find

substance in the arguments of the appellants. For the

year 2012, in a claim under section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month

does not appear to be exorbitant. Appellants are justified

in praying for 25% addition on account of 'future

prospect' on the income of the deceased and they should

also get Rs.70,000/- under collective heads of general

damages. As there were more than 3 dependents, the

deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4th of

deceased's income. Accordingly, the impugned award is

modified and recalculated in the manner referred

hereinafter.

The income of the victim being Rs.4,000/- per

month, upon annualizing, comes to Rs.48,000/-. The

addition of 25% 'future prospect' brings it to Rs.60,000/-.

For 'personal expenses', 1/4th is deducted and then it is

the amount of Rs.45,000/- on which the multiplier of 14

is applied to reach the net pecuniary compensation of

Rs.6,30,000/-. Claimants are also entitled to Rs.70,000/-

on account of collective heads of general damages, taking

the gross compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- together with

interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the

date of lodging the claim till the date of receipt of the

amount.

The claimants acknowledge receipt of the

awarded amount of Rs.3,69,500/- along with interest.

Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,30,500/-

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 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.)