Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akb vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... on 15 July, 2021
Ct.
No. 15.7 F.M.A. 893 of 2004
26 2021 With
IA No. CAN 2 of 2004 (Old No. CAN 10242 of 2004
2 Nirmala Bajaj
akb Vs.
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Krishanu Banik ...For the Appellant/Claimant
Mr. Rajesh Singh ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated May 31, 2004 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, (E.C Act)-cum-Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No. 6 of 2004; M.A.C.
Case No. 22 of 2003 and M.A.C. Case No. 153 of 2003.
Various points have been raised by the claimant
in the instant appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
monthly income of Rs.2,000/- of the victim, as considered
by the learned Judge was inadequate. Further, the
appropriate multiplier in the instant case should have been
'16' and not '15' as applied by the learned Judge. Lastly,
the claimant pleaded that full component of compensation
under collective heads of 'general damages' should have
been Rs.4,500/-. Accordingly, it was argued that a lesser
quantum of compensation has been wrongfully awarded by
the learned Tribunal.
Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel 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 decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Others -vs- Mohammad Tabbar
& Anr. reported in 2008(2) TAC 394 SC and also following the
precedence of this Court on the point of monthly income, I
find substance in the arguments of the appellant. For the
year 2002, in a claim under section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month does
not appear to be exorbitant. Considering the 18 years of the
age of the victim, the appropriate multiplier of '16' is to be
used and the claimant should also be entitled to Rs.4,500/- as
full component of general damages. Accordingly, the
impugned award is modified and recalculated in the manner
referred hereinafter:-
Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/-
Annual Income Rs. 36,000/-
Less 1/3rd for personal Rs. 24,000/-
expenses (Rs.12,000/-)
Multiplier '16' Rs.3,84,000/-
Add 'General Damages' Rs. 4,500/-
OTAL Principal Compensation Rs.3,88,500/-
LESS - awarded by the Rs.2,42,000/-
Tribunal and paid by the Insurer
BALANCE (enhancement) Rs.1,46,500/-
The claimant acknowledges receipt of the
awarded amount of Rs.2,42,000/- as directed by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of
Rs.1,46,500/- would become payable to the appellant 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 appellant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant will forward
the bank account details of the appellant 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 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 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.)
