Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akb vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 8 September, 2021
Ct.
No. 08.9 F.M.A.T 1363 of 2017
26 2021 With
IA No. 1 of 2019 (Old No. C.A.N. 6671 of 2019)
10 Runu Chakraborty & Ors.
akb Vs.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
( Via Video Conference )
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy ...For the Appellants/Claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
Re.: IA No. 1 of 2019 (Old No. C.A.N. 6671 of 2019)
Since, the original application is not found in the
file, the photostat copy of the application for condonation of
delay is taken on record by treating the same as original one.
This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the instant appeal.
On perusal of the pleadings, this Court is satisfied
that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is
sufficient and the prayer for condonation of delay should be
allowed.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of
delay stands allowed.
F.M.A.T 1363 of 2017
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated June 05, 2017 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Burdwan, in
M.A.C. Case No. 37/231 of 2015, in a claim under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for
compensation for death of 39 years old 'Partha Sarathi
Chakraborty' who died in a road accident which took place
on June 02, 2015.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the quantum of
compensation on various grounds. Appellants submit that
the learned Judge disregarded oral and documentary
evidence produced and wrongfully considered the income of
the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, it was
argued that a lesser quantum of compensation has been
wrongfully awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Per contra Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned Counsel,
representing the respondent Insurance Company argues that
in view of the Supreme Court judgment the learned Judge
erred in law while considered the additional income towards
future prospect 30% instead of 25% on the income of the 40
years old deceased and Mr. Paul further submits that the
learned Judge also committed error in law while granted Rs.
1,50,000/- on account of general damages instead of
Rs.70,000/-.
Herd the submissions of the parties. Considering
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Smt.
Sarala Verma & Ors. -Vs.- Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited -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
submissions of the appellants/claimants. For the year 2015,
in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month does not appears to
be exorbitant. Appellants are entitled to get 25% addition on
account of 'future prospect' on the income of 40 years old
deceased instead of 30% and general damages of Rs.70,000/-
instead of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of the settled law.
Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and
recalculated in the manner referred hereinafter :
Monthly income Rs. 5,000/-
Yearly income Rs. 60,000/-
Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 20,000/-
Rs. 40,000/-
Add. 25% future prospect Rs. 10,000/-
Age 40 Multiplier 15 (50,000 X 15) Rs. 7,50,000/-
General damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 8,20,000/-
Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,18,000/-
Compensation payable Rs. 2,02,000/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the
awarded amount of Rs. 6,18,000/- along with interest.
Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.2,02,000/-
would become payable to the appellants/claimants by the
respondent Insurance company together with interest
assessed @ 6% per annum on and from the date of filing of
the claim application till the date of payment within a period
of 45 days from the date of receipt of the bank account
particulars of the appellants.
Learned Counsel for the appellants will forward
the bank particulars of the appellants within a fortnight from
date to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
The payment shall be made by the Insurance
Company directly in the bank accounts of the claimants
through NEFT/REGS, in the same manner and proportion as
decided by the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of. The concerned
Department is directed to trace out the application and tag
the same with this appeal.
There shall be no further order as to costs.
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.)
