Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akb Smt. Lilabati Maity & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 14 July, 2021
Ct.
No. 14.7 F.M.A. 2401 of 2004
26 2021 ( Via Video Conference )
with
1 IA No. CAN 1 of 2004, CAN 2 of 2008 & CAN 3 of 2014
akb Smt. Lilabati Maity & Ors.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Krishanu Banik ...For the Appellants/Claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated July 13, 2004 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Purba Midnapore in
M.A.C. Case No. 95 of 2003/ 945 of 2003.
The claim was filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants/claimants submit that the learned
Tribunal committed error in law while not assessing the
monthly income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- instead of
Rs.15,000/- notional annual income on the basis of
uncontroverted oral evidence as adduced by the widow of
the deceased.
He further submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while not granting 10% additional
income towards future prospect since the deceased was 53
years old self employed person.
He submits that the learned Tribunal committed
error in law while deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th income of
the deceased towards personal expenses since the deceased
leaving six dependants behind him. Mr. Banik further
submits that the learned Tribunal also committed error in law
while granting Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- towards
general damages.
In reply Mr. Paul, the Learned Advocate for the
respondent Insurance Company submits that the award
passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely just and there is
no scope of interference and/or modification of the award.
After having heard the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties and considering the judgments 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 practice of this Court on the point of
monthly income, I find substance in the arguments of the
appellants. Since the accident occurred in the year 2003, in a
claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an
amount of Rs.2,500/- per month does not appear to be
exorbitant. Appellants are also justified in praying for 10%
additional income towards future prospect since the deceased
was 53 years old self employed person and deduction
towards personal expenses shall be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd as
adopted by the Tribunal. However, the general damages
shall be Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified
and recalculated in the manner as follows:-
Monthly income Rs. 2,500/-
Yearly (2500 X 12) Rs. 30,000/-
10% Additional Income toward Rs. 3,000/-
future prospect
Annual Income Rs. 33,000/-
1/4th deduction on personal Expenses Rs. 8,250/-
Loss of annual dependency Rs. 24,750/-
Multiplier 11 (24,750 X 11) Rs.2,72,250/-
General Damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.3,42,250/-
Mr. Banik acknowledges that his clients have
already received the awarded amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.
Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.2,22,250/-
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 till payment within a period of 45 days from the date
of receipt of the Bank account particulars of the appellants.
The payment shall be made in the same manner and
proportion as decided by the Court below.
Learned Counsel for the appellants will forward
the bank account details of the appellants within a fortnight
from date to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of.
In view of disposal of the appeal, connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of. The concerned
Department is directed to trace out the applications and tag
the same with this appeal.
There shall be no further order as to costs.
LCR, if any, may be returned back to the Court
below.
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.)
