Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Karuna Bera & Ors vs National Insurance Company ... on 9 February, 2022
44 09.02.
2022
AGM
RKB
Ct
07 FMAT 139 of 2021
CAN 1/2021
(Video Conference)
Karuna Bera & Ors
versus
National Insurance Company Limited & Anr
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy,
... For the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh,
... For the respondents/claimants.
CAN 1 of 2021
The CAN application pertaining to the prayer
for condonation of delay filed by the
appellants/claimants is taken up for hearing.
Upon perusal of the CAN application, it appears
that there has been delay caused in preferring the
instant appeal, and in the relevant averments of the
application, the appellants have endeavored to
explain the delay.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the
pleadings, this court is satisfied that the causes
shown, thereby explaining the delay have been most
successfully explained, and in that view of the matter,
it appears that petitioners were prevented by
sufficient causes from preferring the appeal within
2
the period of limitation prescribed.
Delay is thus condoned.
Accordingly the application for condonation of
delay stands disposed of.
Furnish relevant FMA No. upon registering the
same.
FMAT 139 of 2021
Learned advocates appearing for both the
parties are ad idem, on the issue that the instant
appeal may be disposed of giving a go by to the
technicalities involved in the process.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
appellants/claimants that the appellants have all
required documents, and learned advocate may
furnish the same in the interest of ensuring
expeditious disposal of this appeal, which is not
opposed by the learned advocate for the
respondent/insurance company.
When both the parties are consensus on such
issue and accordingly urging for expeditious disposal
of this appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.
The appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 3rd October, 2019 passed by the
Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court - II,
Tamluk, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
3
M.A.C. Case No. 45 of 2017 on a claim under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the sudden
death of one 51 years old Rampada Bera, a mason,
having an earning of Rs.6,000/- per month, in a road
accident, dated 12th June, 2011.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate
representing the appellants/claimants primarily
urges grounds in support of this appeal, which are
two-folds. It is contended by the appellants that
Tribunal has erred in law, in assessing the income of
the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, instead of
considering the actual income of the deceased earned
at the relevant time of accident. The income of the
deceased, being a mason, at Rs. 6,000/- per month,
according to appellants, should be taken into account
in deciding the quantum of compensation. The
second ground urged by the appellants is that
'interest' was granted to the claimants only from the
date of recording of evidence of PW1, leading to
inadequate quantification of the award, which can
hardly be regarded as just and proper.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate
representing the Insurance Company/respondent
no.1 without disputing with the facts submits that
the award has been rightly decided by Tribunal upon
considering pros and cons of the case. He strongly
4
opposes the case made out by the appellants.
According to Insurance/respondent no.1, there lies
nothing to be interfered with in this appeal, and as
such, there is no scope for making any interference
by this Court.
Facts
leading to the death of the deceased are
not disputed.
Having considered the submission of the both
sides, as well as the proposition of law laid down by
the Apex Court in cases of Smt. Sarla 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, as well as general practice of our
High Court, the Court is of the view that there is
strong force in the submission advanced by the
learned advocate for the appellants/claimants. The
award granted by the learned Tribunal needs
modification with respect to monthly income and the
same is to be considered at Rs.4,000/- per month
upon considering the price index, the then prevailed.
The said amount does not seem to be exorbitant, as a
Mason in 2011 can be reasonably expected to be
having as income of Rs.4000/- per month. In
addition, claimants would also be entitled to 'interest',
from the date of filing of claim application till
payment.
Accordingly, the impugned order is modified
and re-calculated in the manner referred hereinafter.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.4,000/-
Annual Income Rs.48,000/-
Add 10% future prospect (Rs.4,800/-) Rs.52,800/-
Deduct 1/3rd for personal
expenses (Rs.17,600/-) Rs.35,200/-
Multiplier 11 Rs.3,87,200/-
Add general damages Rs.70,000/-
Total entitlement Rs.4,57,200/-
Less awarded amount Rs.3,34,000/-
Differential amount Rs.1,23,200/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the entire
awarded amount of Rs.3,34,000/- along with interest
as directed by the Tribunal. The balance sum of
Rs.1,23,000/- would become payable to the
appellants 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
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
the bank account particulars of the appellant.
Insurance Company would also pay interest on the
already paid amount, from the date of filing of claim
application till the date the recording of evidence of
PW1 commenced. For such purpose, learned advocate
for the appellants will forward the bank account
details of the appellants within a fortnight from date
to learned advocate for the insurance company. The
payment is to be made in the proportion as already
decided by the learned Tribunal.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal
is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of.
L.C.R. if any, may be returned back to the
learned court below.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance
of all formalities, on priority basis.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)
