Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arjina (Khatun) Bibi vs Akb The New India Assurance Co. ... on 24 September, 2021
Ct.
No. 24.9 F.M.A. 486 of 2014
26 2021 ( Via Video Conference )
Arjina (Khatun) Bibi
1 Vs.
akb The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Ms. Sima Ghosh ...For the Appellant/Claimant
Mr. Arabinda Kundu ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated March 19, 2010 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Suri, (District
Judge) Bidbhum, in M.A.C. Case No. 148 of 2008 in a claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the
death of one Yusuf @ Yusub Sk, who was a mason earning
Rs.4,000/- per month, in a road accident dated February 29,
2008.
Various points have been raised by the
appellant/claimant in the instant appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellant that the learned Tribunal committed error in law
while assessing annual income of the victim as Rs.2,000/-
per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month. It further
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claimant was
not granted any amount under 'future prospect' and also not
assessing the general damages while passing the impugned
award.
In reply, Mr. Arabinda Kundu, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submits
that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely
just and there is no scope for interference and/or
modification of the award. Mr. Kundu further submits that
since the claimant failed to establish the income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed income of
the deceased Rs.2,000/- per month.
Considering the judgments delivered by 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 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. 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 justified in praying for 40%
additional amount towards 'future prospect' instead of 50%
since the deceased was 30 years old working an unorganised
sector. Appellant also raised question about non-pecuniary
damages / general damages which should be Rs.70,000/-.
Accordingly, the ratio as decided in Sarala Varma
(Supra) as well as Pranay Sethi (Supra), the award passed by
the Tribunal is modified and recalculated as follows :
Monthly income Rs. 3,000/-
Add : Future Prospect 40% Rs. 1,200/-
Total monthly income Rs. 4,200/-
Annual Income (4,200 X 12) Rs. 50,400/-
After 1/3rd deduction for personal Expenses Rs. 33,600/-
Multiplier (17) (33,600 X 17) Rs. 5,71,200/-
Collective General damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 6,41,200/-
The claimant acknowledges receipt of the awarded
amount of Rs.2,81,500/- including interest in terms of
direction of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of
Rs.3,59,700/- would become payable to the
appellant/claimant 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 its
final payment 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
bank account details of the appellant within a fortnight from
date to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. The
payment shall be made to the claimant's bank account
directly, in the same manner as decided by the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of.
There shall be no further order as to costs.
In view of 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.
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.)
