Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Suhana Begum & Ors on 8 September, 2021
3+4 08.9.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A.T 330 of 2014
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.
Suhana Begum & Ors.
with
F.M.A.T 553 of 2014
Suhana Begum & Ors.
Vs.
Firoj Sekh & Ors.
with
I.A. No.CAN 1 OF 2014
(Old No.CAN 5930 OF 2014)
--------------
Mr. Arabinda Kundu
...For the Appellant/
Insurance Company.
Mr. Muktakesh Das
...For the Claimants
Since the issues involved in these appeals are
related, these appeals are heard together.
Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2014
(CAN 5930 of 2014)
--------
This is an application for condonation of delay filed
by the claimants/appellants.
On perusal of the pleadings, this Court is satisfied
that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is
sufficient and prayer for condonation of delay is allowed.
Accordingly, the application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of
2014 (CAN 5930 of 2014) is disposed of.
The appeals have been filed by insurance company
and the claimants respectively against the award and/or
judgment dated July 11, 2013 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Nadia,
at Krishnagar in M.A.C. Case No. 545 of 2008 in a claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the
accidental death of one Sujauddin Sk. On June 4, 2009.
Learned advocate for the Insurance Company
submits that this accident happened due to head on
collision of the truck and the motor bike and, therefore,
only the Insurance Company of truck was not responsible
for this accident. He further submits that there was no
proof that the rider of the motorcycle was wearing a
helmet at the time of riding and also driving licence of the
said motorcyclist was not produced before the tribunal. It
is also submitted that the ext. - 5 being the last pay
certificate of the deceased victim issued by the Border
Security Force (BSF) was not properly proved at all.
Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal should be
modified.
Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants
submits that the tribunal committed an error in law while
not granting 50% additional income towards 'future
prospect' since the deceased was 33 years old and a
permanent employee under Central Government Service
(B.S.F.). Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants
also submits that the tribunal also committed an error in
law while granting Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/-
towards 'general damages'.
Be that as it may, considering the submissions of
the parties as well as ovservation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in 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, as well as general
practice of this Court the above award of the tribunal is
modified and recalculated as follows :
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.14,400/-
Annual Income Rs.1,72,800/
Add 50% future prospect Rs.86,400/-
Total income Rs.2,59,200/-
Less 1/3rd Personal Expenses Rs.86,400/-
Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,72,800/-
Multiplier 16 Rs.27,64,800/-
Add general damages Rs.70,000/-
-----------------
Total compensation Rs.28,34,800/-
The claimants submit that they have not received
the awaded amount and they would also be entitled to
interest on the total compensation amount assessed @6%
per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of payment.
The total compensation together with interest as
stated above is to be paid by the National Insurance
Company to the claimants within a period of 45 days of
receipt of particulars of their bank accounts to be
supplied by their learned advocate to the learned
advocate for the National Insurance Company.
It is made clear that payments shall be made by
NEFT/RTGS in the proportion as ordered by the tribunal.
Accordingly, both the appeal and the connected
applications, if any, stand disposed of. Department
concerned is directed to tag the applications with these
appeals.
There will be no order as to costs.
Photocopy of this order, duly counter signed by the
Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records
of FMAT 553 of 2014.
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.)
