Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
26 2021 Mst. Riziya Bibi @ Rizia ... vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 5 October, 2021
Ct.
No. 05.10 F.M.A. 1443 of 2014
26 2021 Mst. Riziya Bibi @ Rizia Bibi & Ors.
Vs.
11 National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
akb ( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Krishanu Banik ...For the Appellants /Claimants
Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated July 15, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur,
in M.A.C. Case No. 84/80 of 2009/2008, in a claim under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on various
points. Admittedly, the accident took place on December
31, 2007 caused by the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing
registration No. @B-29/1576 with a valid insurance policy.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel for the
appellants submits that the learned Tribunal Judge was
wrong in not applying the multiplier of 7 instead and in place
of 5 by considering the age of the victim/deceased as 65
years and further in not assessing the general damages of
Rs.70,000/- as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court (Constitutional Bench consisting of the five Hon'ble
Justices) in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 while
passing the impugned award. It is further submitted by Mr.
Banik that the learned Tribunal Judge had also committed an
error in not deducting 1/4th on account of personal living
expenses as per the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, learned Counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the
submission and contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellants. He submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly
passed the impugned award since the same is quite justified
and reasonable.
After considering the submission and rival
contention of the learned Counsel for the contesting parties
and in view of the law as it stands now, after the decision
pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National
Insurance Company Limited -Vs.- Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma & Ors. -
Vs.- Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 the submissions and points made by Mr. Banik are
accepted. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated as stated hereinafter.
Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/-
Annual Income (3,000 X 12) Rs. 36,000/-
Less: 1/4th deduction Rs. 9,000/-
After deduction the figure comes Rs. 27,000/-
Use Multiplier (7) (27,000 X 7) Rs. 1,89,000/-
Add: General Damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 2,59,000/-
Mr. Banik acknowledges that his clients have
already received a sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- together with
interest that has been awarded by the learned Court below
and paid by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the
differential amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- together with 6%
interest on and from the date of filing the claim petition till
the payment, shall be paid to the claimants by the respondent
Insurance Company in the same manner and proportion as
decided by the Court below within 45 days from the date of
receipt of the particulars of their bank account details to be
supplied by their learned Counsel to the learned Counsel for
the Insurance Company.
It is made clear that the payment shall be made
directly through NEFT/RTGS to the bank accounts of the
claimants/appellants.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal
being F.M.A. 1443 of 2014 shall stand disposed of.
In view of disposal of the appeal, all connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of. The concerned
Department is directed to trace out the applications and tag
with this appeal.
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.)
