Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt Pratima Malik & Anr vs Shriram General Insurance Co. ... on 30 June, 2021
S/L 11
30.6.2021
Court No.26
SD
FMAT 723 of 2016
With
CAN 1 of 2017
(Old CAN 9494 of 2017)
(Via Video Conference)
Smt Pratima Malik & Anr.
Vs.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
... for the Appellants/Claimants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh
... for the Respondents/Insurance Co.
It appears to this Court that the instant appeal has
been filed out of statutory period. Being satisfied with the
cause for delay in filing the instant appeal and since counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company
did not oppose, this Court condones the delay in filing the
instant appeal and the instant appeal is taken up for hearing.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated October 3, 2015 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Burdwan, in
M.A.C Case No. 72 of 2014/427 of 2014, under section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
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 that the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- of the
bachelor victim, considered by the Tribunal was inadequate.
Further, the appellants/claimants were not granted any
amount under 'future prospect'. Appellants/Claimants argue
that multiplier of '13' was wrongly applied for instead of
correct multiplier of '17'. Lastly, the appellants/claimants
were given only Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.70,000/- under the
full component of 'general damages'. Accordingly, it was
argued that a lesser quantum of compensation has been
erroneously awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is represented.
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 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.30,000/- under
collective heads of general damages. The appropriate
multiplier of '17' is to be applied for assessment of
compensation amount. Accordingly, the impugned award is
modified and recalculated in the manner referred
hereinafter.
The income of the victim being Rs.4,000/- per month,
upon annualizing, comes to Rs.48,000/-. The addition of
40% 'future prospect' brings it to Rs.67,200/-. For 'personal
expenses', 50% is deducted and then it is the amount of
Rs.33,600/- on which the multiplier of 17 is applied to reach
the net pecuniary compensation of Rs.5,71,200/-. Claimants
are also entitled to Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of estate
and funeral expenses, taking the gross compensation to
Rs.6,01,200/- together with interest thereon at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of lodging the claim.
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.2,38,500/- along with interest. Accordingly,
the balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,62,700/- 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.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/claimants shall forward the bank account details
of the appellants/claimants to the Insurance Company
within a period of two weeks from date.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay
Rs.3,62,700/- together with interest @6% per annum on and
from date of filing of the claim application to the
appellants'/claimants' bank accounts directly within a period
of four weeks from date, in the same manner and proportion
as decided by the Tribunal.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal is
disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of.
The Registry is directed to send down the lower court
records at once, if received by this time.
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.)
