Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Manju Bouri & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 8 September, 2021
S/L 11
08.9.2021
Court No.26
SD
FMA 833 of 2018
(Via Video Conference)
Smt. Manju Bouri & Ors.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal
... for the Appellants/Claimants.
Mr. Sanjay Paul
... for the Respondent/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated July 29, 2017 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District
Judge, Redesignated Court, Bankura in M.A.C. Case No.30 of
2016/109 of 2015.
Facts
of the case are not in dispute. Counsel for the
appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal committed
error in law while not granting 40% additional amount
towards future prospect since the deceased was 38 years old
self-employed person. Mr. Mandal further submits that the
Tribunal committed error in law while assessing monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- instead of Rs.5,500/-
by ignoring the uncontroverted oral evidence as adduced by
the widow of the deceased.
Mr. Mandal relies on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
In reply, Mr. Sanjay Paul, counsel appearing on behalf
of the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal rightly
assessed the income of Rs.3000/- per month notionally in
absence of documentary evidence and there is no scope of
interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage. Mr. Paul
further submits that the Tribunal committed serious error in
law while granting Rs.1,75,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/-
towards general damages under different heads.
I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and after considering the judgments relied upon by
counsel and also following the practice of this Court on the
point of monthly income, I find some substance in the
submission of the appellants. For the year 2015, in a claim
under Section 166 of the Act 1988, an amount of Rs.5,000/-
per month does not appear to be exorbitant. The appellants
are also entitled to get 40% additional amount towards
future prospect as well as Rs.70,000/- instead of
Rs.1,75,000/- towards general damages.
Accordingly, the impugned award is required to be
modified in the following manner:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 5,000.00
Annual Income (Rs.5000/- x 12) 60,000.00
After 1/4th personal expenses 15,000.00
45,000.00
Add 40% future prospect (+) 18,000.00
63,000.00
Multiplier 15 (38 years old) 9,45,000.00
General damages (+) 70,000.00
Total compensation 10,15,000.00
Mr. Mandal acknowledges that his clients have
already received the entire compensation of Rs.5,83,000/-
together with interest and therefore, the balance amount of
Rs.4,32,000/- would become payable to the claimants by the
respondent/insurance company together with interest @ 6%
per annum on the aforesaid differential awarded amount
from date of filing of the claim application till the date of
payment in the same manner as indicated in the award
within 45 days from the date of receipt of the particulars of
the bank account details of the claimants. Counsel for the
claimants will forward the bank account details of the
claimants within a fortnight from date to the counsel for the
insurance company.
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
applications, if any, are 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.)
