Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Iyasin Sekh vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 12 July, 2021
12.07.2021
ss
F.M.A.T. 1031 of 2014
I.A. CAN 1 of 2017 (old No. CAN 9515 of 2017)
( Via Video Conference )
Iyasin Sekh
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
...For the Appellant/claimant
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya
... For the respondent No.1/Insurance Co.
Re : CAN 1 of 2017 (old No.CAN 9515 of 2017)
In view of the reasons shown in the application
being CAN 1 of 2017 (old No. CAN 9515 of 2017), the
delay in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal
is regularised.
By consent of the parties, the instant appeal is
treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing.
The department is directed to issue F.M.A. number
immediately.
Re : F.M.A.T. 1031 of 2014
The claimant is in appeal complaining of the
inadequate compensation granted by the Tribunal in its
award/judgement dated February 28, 2014 passed by
learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court,
Burdwan in Motor Accident Claims Case No.10 of 2013,
on a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 in respect of an accident that took place on
04.06.2012.
The appellant states that the instant claim
application has been filed thereby praying compensation
for the injury suffered in the accident, the appellant was a
mason and he suffered the accident at the age of 44
years. The appellant states that he used to Rs.300/- per
day, that is, Rs.9,000/- per month but did not adduce
any evidence in support of such claim and the learned
Tribunal held it Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Advocate
for the claimant states that for some time it has been the
practice of this Court to take the basic income upto the
year 2010 as Rs.3,000/- and from 2011 to 2014, it would
be Rs.4,000/- and from 2015 onwards it would be
Rs.5,000/-. Since the unskilled workers were capable to
earning such amount per month when working most of
the days. The appellant further points out that the
claimant is also entitled to 25% on account of future
prospects in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and
reasonable amount on account of non-pecuniary damage.
However, learned Tribunal erred in not allowing the same.
The Insurance Company is represented and
contested by Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, learned
Advocate.
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya points out from the
impugned award that the learned Tribunal at the time of
assessment of compensation converted the instant claim
case to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
compensation should be calculated on the basis of
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Counsel for the
appellant/claimant relies on the record and specifies that
no amendment application was ever made by the
claimant and the entire calculation was made on the
basis of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
thus, being satisfied the impugned judgement is
reassessed on the basis of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
The impugned award is modified and the claimant
is found to be entitled to a total amount of Rs.7,22,000/-
together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of lodging the claim till the receipt
of payment as indicated morefully hereafter:-
Sl. Amount
No. Particulars
1. Yearly Income (Rs.4000X 12) Rs.48,000
2. Future Prospect (25%) Rs.12,000
Total : 48,000/- + 12,000/- Rs.60,000
3. 80% loss of income due to
permanent disablement
80% of 60,000/- Rs.48,000
4. Multiplier of 14 (Complainat's
Age is 44 years) 14 X Rs.48000/- Rs.6,72,000
5. Non-pecuniary damages Rs.50,000
Total (6,72,000/- + 50,000/-) Rs.7,22,000
The claimant acknowledges receipt of a sum of
Rs.4,32,000/-. The balance sum of Rs.2,90,000/- would
become payable by the Insurance Company to the
appellant 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 45 days from the date of receipt
of the bank account particulars of the appellant.
Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant will
forward the bank account details of the appellant/
claimant within a fortnight from the date to the learned
Advocate for the Insurance Company.
With the above observations, the instant appeal is
disposed.
There will be no order as to costs.
In view of disposal of this appeal, the connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of. The concerned
department is directed to tag the applications, if any, with
the main appeal.
The Registry is directed to send down the lower
court records at once, if received by this time.
Urgent photostat certgified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying
with all necessary legal formalities.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
