Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Bandana Singha Thakur & Ors vs The Manager (Legal) on 27 July, 2021
11 27.07.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A.T 724 of 2016
--------------
Smt. Bandana Singha Thakur & Ors.
Vs.
The Manager (Legal), Sriram General
Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Krishanu Banik
...For the Appellants/
Claimants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Respondent/
Insurance Co. Ltd.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 23rd June 2015 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bankura in M.A.C. Case
No. 06 of 2013/70 of 2012, on a claim under section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one
'Nandadulal Singha Thakur' in a road accident dated
March 6, 2015.
Various points have been raised by the
appellants/claimants in the instant appeal challenging
the quantum of compensation. It is submitted on behalf
of the appellants/claimants that the monthly income of
Rs.3,000/- of the victim considered by the learned Judge
was inadequate. Further, the appellants/claimants were
not granted any amount under 'future prospect'. The
appellants/claimants submit that in view of four number
of dependents, the deduction for 'personal expenses'
should have been 1/4th of the income of the deceased.
Lastly, the appellants/claimants plead that they were
erroneously given only Rs.50,000/- instead of
Rs.70,000/- under the different heads of 'general
damages'. Accordingly, it was argued that a lesser
quantum of compensation has been wrongfully awarded
by the tribunal.
Per contra, the 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, and also following the precedence of
this Court on the point of monthly income, I find
substance in the arguments of the appellants/claimants.
For the year 2015, in a claim under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the appellants/claimants
themselves assert the income of the deceased to be Rs.
4,500/- per month, it does not appear to be exorbitant.
The appellants/claimants are justified in praying for 25%
addition on account of 'future prospect' on the income of
the deceased. As there were four number of dependents,
the deduction for 'personal expenses' should be 1/4th of
the income of the deceased. The appellants/claimants
would also be entitled to 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.4,500/-
Annual Income Rs.54,000/
Less 1/4th for personal expenses
(Rs.13,500/-) Rs.40,500/-
Add 25% future prospect
(Rs.10,125/-) Rs.50,625/-
Multiplier '14' Rs.7,08,750/-
Add 'General Damages' Rs.70,000/-
Total Principal Compensation Rs.7,78,750/-
Less - awarded by tribunal and
paid by insurer Rs.3,62,000/-
Balance (enhancement) Rs.4,16,750/-
The appellants/claimants acknowledge the receipt
of the awarded amount of Rs.3,62,000/- in terms of the
direction of the tribunal. Accordingly, the balance
enhanced sum of Rs.4,16,750/- 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. Advocate for the
appellants/claimants will forward the bank account
details of the appellants/claimants within a fortnight
from date to the 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 department
concerned 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.)
