Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dipali Ghosh & Ors vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 14 July, 2021
14.07.2021
ss ( Via Video Conference )
F.M.A.T. 1316 of 2019
Dipali Ghosh & ors.
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Muktakesh Das
...For the Appellants/claimants
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
It appears to this Court that there is delay in filing
the instant appeal.
On the oral prayer of the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and since learned
Counsel for the respondent no.1/Insurance Company did
not oppose, this Court condones the delay in filing the
instant appeal.
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.
F.M.A.T. 1316 of 2019
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Learned Judge,
M.A.C. Tribunal, 3rd Court, Nadia at Krishnagar in MAC
Case No.382 of 2016 on a claim under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for the accidental death of one
'Ranjit Ghosh' in a road accident dated November 21,
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.3,000/- of the victim,
considered by the learned Judge was inadequate.
Further, the claimants were not granted any amount
under 'future prospect'. Claimants pleaded that full
component of compensation under collective heads of
'general damages' were not provided. Lastly, claimants
submitted that the appropriate multiplier in the instant
case should have been '9' but the lerarned Judge
erroneously applied the multiplier of '8' purchase factor.
Accordingly, it was argued that a lesser quantum of
compensation has been wrongfully awarded by the
Tribunal.
Mr. Singh, the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the insurance company submits that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was
correct in the assessment of compensation as awarded.
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 for a driver. Appellants
are justified in praying for 10% addition on account of
'future prospect' on the income of the deceased.
Considering the 58 years of the age of the victim, the
appropriate multiplier of '9' is to be used and the
claimants should also be made entitled to Rs.70,000/- as
full component of general damages. Accordingly, the
impugned award is modified and recalculated in the
manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.5,000/-
Add 10% future prospects (Rs.500/-) Rs.5,500/-
Annual Income Rs.66,000/
Less 1/3rd for personal expenses
(Rs.22,000/-) Rs.44,000/-
Multiplier '9' Rs.3,96,000/-
Add 'General Damages' Rs.70,000/-
TOTAL Principal Compensation Rs.4,66,000/-
LESS - awarded by Tribunal and
paid by insurer Rs.2,01,500/-
BALANCE (enhancement) Rs.2,64,500/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.2,01,500/- along with interest. Accordingly,
the balance enhanced sum of Rs.2,64,500/- 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 said 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.)
