Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rongina Bibi & Ors vs The Branch Manager Hdfc Ergo G.I. ... on 19 July, 2021
19.07.2021
ss ( Via Video Conference )
F.M.A. 825 of 2018
Rongina Bibi & ors.
Vs.
The Branch Manager HDFC ERGO G.I. Co. Ltd. & ors.
Mr. Krishanu Banik ...For the Appellants/claimants
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated May 22, 2017 passed by learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District
Judge (redesignated) Court, Bankura in M.A.C Case No.
43 of 2016/66 of 2014, for the death of 'Sk. Ujjwal' in a
road accident dated April 08, 2014.
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'. Lastly, claimants plead that they
were erroneously given only Rs.65,000/- instead of
Rs.70,000/- under the full component of 'general
damages'. Accordingly, it was argued that a lesser
quantum of compensation has been wrongfully awarded
by the Tribunal.
Per contra, Mr. Singh, the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the insurance company argues
that the award is just and reasonable and there is no
further scope of enhancement of the same.
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 2014, in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, an amount of Rs.4,000/- 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 and they should
also get Rs.70,000/- under collective heads of general
damages. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified
and recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.4,000/-
Annual Income Rs.48,000/-
Less: 1/3rd for personal expenses
(Rs.16,000/-) Rs.32,000/-
Add: 40% future prospects
(Rs.12,800/-) Rs.44,800/-
Multiplier '18' Rs.8,06,400/-
Add 'General Damages' Rs.70,000/-
TOTAL Principal Compensation Rs.8,76,400/-
LESS - awarded by Tribunal and
paid by insurer Rs.4,97,000/-
BALANCE (enhancement) Rs.3,79,400/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.4,97,000/- along with interest. Accordingly,
the balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,79,400/- 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 said appellant within a fortnight
from date to the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company. The payment shall be made only to the mother
of the deceased, being appellant no. 1, as 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.)
