Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
26 2021 The Oriental Insurance Co. ... vs 6 Kabalesia Keut & Ors on 1 September, 2021
Ct.
No. 01.9 F.M.A. 4454 of 2016
26 2021 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.
6 Kabalesia Keut & Ors.
& With
8 C.O.
akb C.O.T. 69 of 2019
Kabalesia Keut Dead R/P
By Manoj Kewat & Ors.
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Rajesh Singh ...For the Appellant/Insurance Co. &
Respondent in COT 69 of 2019
Mr. Ali Imam Shah ...For the Respondents/Claimants &
Appellants in COT 69 of 2019
By consent of the parties, both the appeals are
taken up for hearing analogously by treating the cross
appeal, being COT 69 of 2019, as on day's list.
The concerned Department is directed to trace out
and tag the said cross appeal along with this appeal, being
FMA 4454 of 2016.
Re.: C.A.N. 10623 of 2016.
This application has been filed by the claimants for
recording the death and expunging the name of the
respondent No. 1 'Kablesia Keut' who died on January 03,
2016. It is submitted that all surviving heirs of the deceased
are already on record and arrayed as respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4,
5 6 and 8.
Accordingly, the name of the respondent No. 1 be
struck of and substituted by respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
8. The share of the compensation of respondent No. 1 should
be equally distributed among the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5,
6 and 8.
F.M.A.4454 of 2016.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated November 30, 2015 passed by the learned Judge,
Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Durgapur, Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No. 55 of 2012 / 158 of
2011(old), on a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of 59 years old 'Gobin
Kewat' in a vehicular accident dated June 23, 2011.
The appeal has been preferred by the appellant
Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of award.
Insurer submits that the learned Judge erred in selecting the
multiplier of '8' purchase factor as the 59 years old deceased
had only '1' year of service left. Insurer submits that
considering the residual year of service of the deceased, the
selection of multiplier was inappropriate which resulted in
awarding excessive compensation.
Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants
supports the finding of the learned Tribunal. The claimants
pray for dismissal of the appeal of the insurer.
In the case of Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and Ors. Vs.
Mani Muthupandi and Ors., reported in 2017 (@) TAC 3 SC, the
Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of selection of
multiplier on the basis of residual years of service of the
victim. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated
that for selection of multiplier, the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court pronounced in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 is to be followed. Accordingly, the ground of
insurer for selection of multiplier on the basis of 'residual
years of service' is devoid of any merit and fails. The
claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the compensation amount to be calculated
from the date of filing the claim application till realization.
The learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company submits that a total sum of Rs. 26,02,310/- by way
of two separate deposits, has been secured by the insurer
with the learned Registrar General of this Court.
Accordingly, the claimants/respondents shall
furnish particulars of their bank accounts as also the proof of
identity with the Registrar General of this Court as
expeditiously as possible. Upon deposit of such details, the
Registrar General is directed to pay the entire deposited
amount along with accrued interest to the
claimants/respondents in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks.
The Registrar General shall Check the veracity of
the bank account and the identity of the claimants before
disbursing the amount.
As stated earlier, the share of compensation of
respondent No. 1, since deceased, should be equally
distributed among the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
Upon receiving the said payment from the
Registrar General, the learned Counsel for the claimants
shall inform the same along with bank particulars of the
claimants, to the learned Counsel for the Insurance
Company. The insurer, within a period of 45 days from the
date of receipt of bank account details of the claimants, shall
calculate the deficit payment, if any, in terms of the direction
of this Court and make payment of the same to the
claimants. The payment shall be made directly in the bank
accounts of the claimants through NEFT/RTGS, in the
proportion decided by the Court below and in conformity
with the order given hereinbefore.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal
being F.M.A. 4454 of 2016 shall stand disposed of. The
Cross Objection of the claimants, being COT 69 of 2019,
filed three years after filing of this appeal, is not pressed and
is accordingly disposed of.
There shall be no further order as to costs. In view
of the disposal of the appeals, connected applications are
also disposed of.
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.)
