Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Shanti Mahato & Anr vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 28 September, 2021
S/L 7
28.9.2021
Court No.26
SD
FMA 232 of 2019
(Via Video Conference)
Smt. Shanti Mahato & Anr.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Saidur Rahaman
... for the Appellants/Claimants.
Mr. Sanjay Paul
... for the Respondent/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated December 19, 2016 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in M.A.C.
Case No.86 of 2015 on a claim under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the accidental death of
Prashanta Kumar Mahato..
The facts of the case are not in dispute.
Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
Tribunal committed error in law while not granting
Rs.1,42,710/- towards medical expenses since the claimants
have produced all original prescription and bills pertaining
to the treatment of the said victim named Prashanta Kumar
Mahato.
He further submits that the Tribunal committed error
in law while not granting 50% additional income towards
future prospect since the deceased was a permanent lecturer
of Uttar Dinajpur Primary Training Institute and getting a
salary of Rs.17,382/-. He was 31 years old at the time of
accident.
In reply, counsel for the respondent/insurance
company submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is
absolutely just while not granting Rs.1,42,710/- towards
medical expenses since the claimants failed to adduce any
evidence by calling upon the author of the said documents.
He further submits that the Tribunal is just while not
granting any additional amount towards future prospect
since the claimants failed to prove the prospect of the
deceased by producing any cogent evidence.
Heard the parties. It is true that the claimants failed
to adduce any evidence by calling upon the author of the
medical documents before the Tribunal. Therefore, I am not
inclined to grant any amount towards medical expenses.
However, the Tribunal committed error in law while
not granting 50% additional income towards future prospect
since the deceased was permanent lecturer of Uttar Dinajpur
Primary Training Institute and getting a salary of Rs.17,382/-
and the claimants were able to establish the same by
adducing uncontroverted evidence of the said employer, PW-
3.
Considering the judgments of Smt. Sarla 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, the impugned award is thus modified
and recalculated as follows:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 17,382.00
Annual Income (Rs.17,382/- x 12) 2,08,584.00
Add 50% future prospect 1,04,292.00
Total income 3,12,876.00
Less 50% on account of personal expenses 1,56,438.00
Loss of annual dependency 1,56,438.00
Multiplier 16 25,03,008.00
General damages 30,000.00
Total compensation 25,33,008.00
Counsel for the appellants acknowledges that the
claimants have already received the awarded sum of
Rs.16,78,670/- that has been paid by the insurance company.
The differential amount which comes to Rs.8,54,338/-
together with 6% per annum interest from the date of filing
of the claim application till payment which shall be paid to
the claimants in the same manner as indicated in the award
within 30 days of receipt of particulars of their bank accounts
to be supplied by his counsel to the counsel for the insurance
company.
He further submits that his clients have received only
awarded sum of Rs.16,78,670/- but no amount towards
interest, as granted by the tribunal, was deposited by the
insurance company. In reply, Mr. Paul submits that he has
no instruction regarding non-deposit of interest as granted
by the Tribunal.
Be that as it may, the insurance company is directed to
pay the interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded sum of
Rs.16,78,670/- from the date of claim application till the date
of deposit of such amount before the Tribunal, if not paid
earlier.
It is made clear that the payments shall be made by
NEFT/RTGS in the proportion as ordered 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 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.)
