Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
26 2021 Sahidul Sk @ Sahidur Mondal vs 7 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 8 September, 2021
Ct.
No. 08.9 F.M.A. 740 of 2016
26 2021 Sahidul Sk @ Sahidur Mondal
Vs.
7 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
akb ( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Muktakesh Das ...For the Appellant/Claimant
Mr. P.K. Pahari ...For the Respondent Insurance Co.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated March 16, 2016 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge,
5th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, in M.A.C Case No. 496 of
2006, on a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 for 60% permanent disability suffered by one
'Saidul Sk @ Sahidur Mondal' in a road accident dated
February 21, 2006.
Various points have been raised by the claimant
in the instant appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that
his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- has not been considered
by the learned Judge.
Mr. Muktokesh Das, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that the claimant suffered permanently
disabled upto 60%. The permanent disability certificate has
been marked as Ext. 4. The said certificate was issued by
the medical board of District Hospital, Nadia on January 05,
2007. The Doctor, namely Dr. Anupam Samanta as P.W. 3
filed this evidence by way of affidavit. The learned Tribunal
committed error in law and not granted compensation with
regard to permanent disability of the appellant/claimant.
Mr. Das further submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while not granting amount on
account of pain and suffering and medical expenses.
He further submits that the learned Tribunal
committed error in law while not granting compensation on
account of future prospect as 40% since the claimant was 26
years old working as a skilled labourer for construction of
pucca road.
Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the said disability certificate of the claimant
issued by the Medical Board of the District Hospital of
Nadia on January 05, 2007, whereas the accident took place
on February 21, 2006.
Considering the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex
in the cases of Smt. Sarala 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 appellant. For the year 2006, in a claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an
amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month does not appear to be
exorbitant. Appellant is a skilled labourer for construction of
pucca road. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified
and recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter:
Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/-
Yearly Income Rs. 36,000/-
Add 40% Future Prospects (Rs.10,800/-) Rs. 14,400/-
Total Income Rs. 50,400/-
Annual loss of dependency Rs. 50,400/-
Multiplier 17 (Rs. 50,400X 17) Rs.8,56,800/-
Net pecuniary compensation Rs.5,14,080/-
Permanent Disability 60% (Rs.8,56,800 X 60/100)
Add. Non-Pecuniary compensation Rs.1,00,000/-
Add Medical Charge Rs. 50,000/-
Total compensation Rs.6,64,080/-
The appellant also submits that he has received
the awarded sum of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, balance
enhanced sum of Rs.6,14,080/- would become payable to the
appellant 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 till the date of realization.
The enhanced compensation together with
interest as stated above is to be paid by the Insurance
Company to the claimant within a period of 45 days from the
date of receipt of the bank account particulars of the
appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant will forward
the bank account details of the appellant within a fortnight
from date to learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
The said enhanced payment shall be paid by the
respondent/Insurance Company to the claimant through
NEFT/ RTGS.
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.)
