Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rinki Khatunc&Cr vs The United India Insurance ... on 17 February, 2022
17.02.2022
Item No.23
Ct. No.7
AGM
RKB
F.M.A.T. 322 of 2020
(Via Video Conference)
Rinki KhatunC&CR
Vs.
The United India Insurance Company Limited &
Anr.
Mr. Saidur Rahaman,
... For the Appellants.
Ms. Sucharita Paul, ... For the Respondents.
Learned advocates for both the parties are ad idem
on the point 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
appellant/claimant that the claimant has been
suffering from financial distress for want of
sufficiency of money for her sustenance in this
pandemic, and urges the Court for disposing of the
appeal on the basis of materials furnished by both the
parties to the case, which is not opposed by the
learned advocate representing the Insurance
Company/respondent No. 1.
When learned advocates for both the parties are
agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant
appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.
2
Department to furnish relevant F.M.A particulars,
if necessary.
The appeal has emerged out against the judgment
and award dated 4th February, 2020 passed by
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5th
Court, Malda, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 291
of 2018, on a claim case under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 granting award to the tune
of Rs. 2,92,500/- to the legal heir of the deceased,
Saitara Khatun, aged about 27 years, for a vehicular
accident, occurred on 22nd November, 2017 by reason
of involvement of vehicle bearing No. WB-65/1699 in
consequence of rash and negligent driving.
Mr. Saidur Rahaman, learned advocate
representing the appellant/claimant primarily urges
grounds in support of this appeal, which are four-
folds. It is contended by the appellant 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 that the victim earned
at the relevant time of accident. The income of the
deceased, being a labour, should have been
considered at Rs. 5,000/- per month, according to
appellant, in deciding the quantum of compensation.
The second ground urged by the appellant is that
no future prospects was granted by the Ld. Tribunal
3
to the claimant on the income of the deceased victim
leading to inadequate quantification of the award,
which can hardy be regarded to be just and proper.
Mr. Rahaman further submits that the learned
Tribunal applied erroneous multiplier of 16 to assess
the compensation amount. The correct multiplier
should be 17 in the instant case for the death of a
victim, who died bachelor at the age of about 27
years.
The fourth ground urged by the appellant/claimant
is that that learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded
Rs. 4,500/- under the collective heads of 'general
damages', which should have been Rs. 30,000/-.
Mrs. Paul, the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of
the insurance company argues that the learned
Tribunal was correct in accepting the income of the
victim to be Rs. 3,000/- in absence of any
documentary evidence. However, she also points out
that it is the case of the claimant that the victim used
to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, in view of
the admission of the claimant, the income of the
victim cannot be taken to be Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Mrs. Paul further submits that the award has been
rightly decided by Tribunal upon considering pros
and cons of the case. She strongly opposes the case
made out by the appellant. According to Insurance
4
Company/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
at all disputed.
Having considered the submission of 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 precedence 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
appellant/claimant. However, on the point of income,
this Court finds substance in the arguments made on
behalf of Insurance Company.
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.
The said amount does not seem to be exorbitant, as a
labour in 2017 can be reasonably expected to be
having an income of Rs. 4,000/- per month. In
addition, claimant would also be entitled to '40%
future prospect', and Rs. 30,000/- on the collective
heads of general damages. The multiplier of 17 is
applied here for proper quantification of award, while
modifying the compensation amount.
Accordingly, the order passed by the learned
Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned
hereinbelow and recalculated as hereunder:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income 4,000/-
Add 40% future prospect +1,600/-
5,600/-
x 12
67,200/-
Less ½ personal expenses - 33,600/-
33,600/-
Multiplier of 17 to be used x17
5,71,200/-
Collective heads of General
Damages (+) 30,000/-
6,01,200/-
Less: Awarded amount (-) 2,92,500/-
Balance enhanced amount 3,08,700/-
The claimant acknowledges the receipt of the entire
awarded amount of Rs. 2,92,500/- along with
interest. The balance enhanced sum of Rs. 3,08,700/-
would become payable to the claimant/appellant
together with interest assessed at the rate of 6% per
annum on and from the date of filing of the claim
petition till payment within a period of 45 days from
the date of receipt of the bank account particulars of
the claimant/appellant from the learned advocate of
the appellant.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal is
disposed of.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Learned advocate for the claimant is directed to
furnish bank account particulars of the claimant to
learned advocate for the Insurance Company within
three weeks from the date of this order. The payment
shall made by NEFT or RTGS directly to the account
of claimant.
Department is directed to send down the Lower
Court Records immediately, if received.
There shall 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.)
