Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tanima Das (Dutta) & Ors vs The United India Insurance ... on 27 July, 2021
13 27.07.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A. 3715 of 2016
--------------
Tanima Das (Dutta) & Ors.
Vs.
The United India Insurance Company
Limited, Krishnagar Branch & Anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
...For the Appellants/
Claimants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Respondent/
Insurance Co. Ltd.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 30th day of September, 2013, passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Nadia in
M.A.C. Case No.292 of 2013 for the death of 34 years old
'Debasis Das' in a road accident dated March 16, 2013.
In the instant appeal, appellants/claimants have
challenged the quantum of compensation on various
points. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellants/claimants that the appellants/claimants were
not granted any amount under 'future prospect'. Further,
the appellants/claimants have pleaded that they were
erroneously given only Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.70,000/-
under the full component of 'general damages'. Lastly,
appellants/claimants stated that tribunal erred in not
granting interest on the awarded sum from the date of
filing of claim application. Accordingly, it was argued that
a lesser quantum of compensation has been wrongfully
awarded by the tribunal.
Per contra, learned advocate representing the
respondent/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, I find substance in the arguments of
the appellants/claimants. The appellants/claimants 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. The compensation amount is to carry interest
in terms of section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The appellants/claimants however admit that the correct
multiplier in the instant case should have been '16' and
the Court below erred in applying the multiplier of '17' for
assessment.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.10,000/-
Annual Income Rs.1,20,000/
Less 1/3rd for personal expenses
(Rs.40,000/-) Rs.80,000/-
Add 40% future prospect
(Rs.32,000/-) Rs.1,12,000/-
Multiplier '16' Rs.17,92,000/-
Add 'General Damages' Rs.70,000/-
TOTAL Principal Compensation Rs.18,62,000/-
LESS - awarded by Tribunal and
paid by insurer Rs.13,69,500/-
BALANCE (enhancement) Rs.4,92,500/-
The appellants/claimants acknowledge the receipt
of the awarded amount of Rs.13,69,500/- in terms of the
direction of the tribunal. Accordingly, the balance
enhanced sum of Rs.4,92,500/- would become payable to
the appellants/claimants by the respondent/insurance
company, together with interest assessed at the rate of
6% per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim
application within a period of 45 days from the date of
receipt of the bank account particulars of the
appellants/claimants. If it is found that appellants/
claimants did not receive interest as directed hereinabove,
on the already awarded and paid amount of
Rs.13,69,500/-, the insurer shall pay interest on the said
amount at the same rate of 6% per annum from the date
of filing of claim application till the date of payment.
Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants will
forward the bank account details of the
appellants/claimants within a fortnight from date to
advocate for the respondent/insurance company. The
payment shall be made in the proportion 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.)
