Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Minati Rajvor Mahato @ Minati ... vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 14 July, 2021
14.07.2021
ss ( Via Video Conference )
F.M.A.T. 386 of 2021
Minati Rajvor Mahato @ Minati Mahato & ors.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Subhankar Mandal
...For the Appellants/claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul
...For the Respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 20-03-2021 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District
Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in
M.A.C Case No. 138 of 2018, on a claim under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one
'Rupchand Mahato' in a road accident dated 13-05-2018.
The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned Advocate for the
appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while not assessing the monthly
income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/-
on the basis of uncontroverted oral evidence as adduced
by the widow of the deceased.
Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants
further submit that the learned Tribunal committed error
in law while not granting 40% additional income towards
future prospect since the deceased was 31 years old self
employed person.
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
award.
Mr. Paul further submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while deducting 1/5th instead of
1/4th income of the deceased towards personal expenses
since the deceased 4 dependants behind him.
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 precedence of this Court on
the point of monthly income, I find substance in the
arguments of the appellants. For the year 2018, 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 deceased. Since the deceased leaving four dependants
behind him, therefore, deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased shall be 1/4th.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner as follows:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 5,000/-
Annual Income (x 12) 60,000/-
40% additional income towards 24,000/-
future prospect
Annual income 84,000/-
Less 1/4th deduction 21,000/-
Loss of annual dependency 63,000/-
Multiplier (16) 10,08,000/-
General damages 70,000/-
Total 10,78,000/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.6,84,400/- along with interest. Accordingly,
the balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,93,600/- 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 learned Advocate for the Insurance Company.
It is made clear that the payments shall be made by
NEFT/ RTGS in the proportion as ordered by the Court
below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal
bearing F.M.A.T. No.386 of 2021 is disposed of.
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.)
