Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mithu Bera & Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 13 July, 2021
13.07.2021
ss
F.M.A.T. 238 of 2020
I.A. CAN 1 of 2021
( Via Video Conference )
Mithu Bera & ors.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya
Ms. Poonam Keswani
...For the Appellants/claimants
Mr. Rajesh Singh
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
CAN 1 of 2021
On the prayer of the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants and since learned Counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company did not oppose, this
Court condones the delay in filing the instant appeal. The
application for condonation of delay is disposed of.
By consent of the parties, 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.
FMAT 238 of 2020
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated October 10, 2018 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1st
Court, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, in M.A.C Case No. 99
of 2016/310 of 2016, on a claim under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one 'Debashish
Bera' in a road accident dated June 6, 2016.
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.4,000/- of the victim,
considered by the learned Judge was inadequate.
Further, the claimants were not granted any amount
under 'future prospect'. Lastly, claimants pleaded that
full component of compensation under collective heads of
'general damages' were not provided. Accordingly, it was
argued that a lesser quantum of compensation has been
wrongfully awarded by the Tribunal.
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 2016, in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month
does not appear to be exorbitant. Appellants are justified
in praying for 40% addition on account of 'future
prospect' on the income of the 33 years old deceased. The
'general damages' should also be for Rs.70,000/- in total.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 5,000/-
Annual Income 60,000/-
Add - 40% income for future
prospects (Rs.24,000/-) 84,000/-
Less - 1/4th for personal
expenses (Rs.21,000/-) 63,000/-
Multiplier (16) 10,08,000/-
Collective General Damages 70,000/-
Total 10,78,000/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.7,19,227/- along with interest. Accordingly,
the balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,58,773/- 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.
Learned Advocate for the appellants will forward the bank
account details of the appellants within a fortnight from
date to the learned 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.)
