Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Muni Sekh @ Mani Sk @ Moni Bibi @ Noni ... vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 13 September, 2021
S/L 6
13.9.2021
Court No.26
SD
FMAT 253 of 2020
(Via Video Conference)
Muni Sekh @ Mani Sk @ Moni Bibi @ Noni Sk
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Muktakesh Das
... for the Appellant/Claimant.
Mr. P.K. Pahari
... for the Respondent/Insurance Co.
On the oral prayer of the counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant/claimant, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned. No serious objection has been raised by Mr. P.K.
Pahari, counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance
company.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated June 15, 2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, 2nd Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nadia at Krishnagar in M.A.C. Case No.361 of 2014 on a
claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
80% permanent disability suffered by one 'Moni Sekh @
Mani Sk @ Moni Bibi @ Noni Sk.' in a road accident dated
August 20, 2014.
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 her monthly
income of Rs.3,000/- considered by the learned Judge was
inadequate. It was also pleaded that the total grant of non-
pecuniary compensation of Rs.50,000/- was insufficient in
view of seriousness of injury. Accordingly, it was argued that
a lesser quantum of compensation has been wrongfully
awarded by the Tribunal.
The insurance company is represented.
Considering the judgments 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 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 2014, in a
claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an
amount of Rs.4000/- per month does not appear to be
exorbitant. Appellant being a skilled weaver, is justified in
praying for enhancement of non-pecuniary compensation for
her incapacity to earn for the rest of her life and therefore,
such compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned award is
modified and recalculated in the manner referred
hereinafter.
The income of the victim being Rs.4000/- per month,
upon annualizing comes to Rs.48,000/-. The addition of
25% 'future prospect' brings it to Rs.60,000/-.
Corresponding to the permanent disability, for her 80% loss
of earning capacity, it is the amount of Rs.60,000/- on which
the multiplier of 14 is applied to reach the net pecuniary
compensation of Rs.6,72,000/-. On the said amount,
claimant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of non-
pecuniary compensation, taking the gross amount to
Rs.7,72,000/-. I am not inclined to interfere with a sum of
Rs.24,856/- granted by the court below under medical
expenses and other heads. Therefore, the claimant is entitled
to a total compensation of Rs.7,96,856/-.
The appellant also submits that they have received the
awarded amount of Rs.5,46,856/- along with interest.
Therefore, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
would become payable to the appellant by the insurance
company along 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 actual 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 30 days of receipt of particulars
of their bank accounts to be supplied by appellant's counsel
to the counsel for the insurance company.
It is made clear the payments shall be made by
NEFT/RTGS in the proportion as ordered by the court below
with the aforesaid direction.
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.)
