Jasimuddin Khan & Ors vs S.B.S.T.C. Haldia Depo
2022 Latest Caselaw 4107 Cal

02.   11.07.2022
      Ct. No.14
      Tanmoy
                                   F.M.A. 773 of 2022

                                Jasimuddin Khan & Ors.
                                       -Versus-
                                S.B.S.T.C. Haldia Depo




                   Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Adv.,
                   Mr. Sandip Bandyopadhyay, Adv.,
                   Ms. Ruxmini Basu Roy, Adv.

                                ...for the appellants/claimants

                   Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv.,
                   Ms. Debasree Dhamali, Adv.

                                ...for the respondent,S.B.S.T.C.

Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Fast-Track Court-II, Tamluk, Purba

Medinipur in MAC Case No. 115 of 2014, the

appellants have preferred the instant appeal. By the

judgment dated October 27, 2017, the learned Tribunal

directed the respondent, South Bengal State Transport

Corporation, Haldia Depot, to pay an amount of

Rs.3,21,500/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty One

Thousand Five Hundred) as compensation to the

claimants.

The claim application was filed by Amjed Khan,

the husband of the deceased and the aforesaid

appellants/claimants, the rest legal heirs of the

deceased.

During the pendency of this appeal Amjed Khan

died.

The facts emanating from the claim application

may be adumbrated as under:

On April 5, 2014, at about 7 p.m., Jasiman Bibi,

wife of Amjed Khan, a resident of village -Nandapur,

P.S.-Chandipur, District - Purba Medinipur, was

returning home from Chandipur Bazar along

Chandipur-Nandigram bus road. While she reached

near Arashal Pir Mandir, at that time a bus bearing No.

WB-39A/1380 (S.B.S.T.C.), coming from Chandipur

side with excessive speed and driven in rash and

negligent manner, dashed Jasiman Bibi. As a result of

which, she sustained grievous injuries on her person.

Firstly, she was taken to Arashal Health Centre under

Chandipur Police station and therefrom she was

referred to District Hospital, Purba Medinipur at

Tamluk. She was treated there on April 5, 2014.

Subsequently, she was referred to NRS Medical College

and Hospital, Kolkata, where she succumbed to the

injuries on April 7, 2014.

Owing to rash and negligent driving on the part of

the driver of the offending vehicle, the victim met with

the accident and she lost her life.

On the allegations of rash and negligent driving on

the part of the driver, one Chandipur P.S. Case No. 53

of 2014 dated April 22, 2014, under Sections

279/304(A), I.P.C. was registered for investigation. At

the time of the accident, the victim was aged about 45

years. She used to earn Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand) per month by carrying on vegetable

business.

On the aforesaid facts, the claimant No.1 Amjed

Khan since deceased who happened to be the husband

of the victim and the other claimants who happen to be

the legal heirs of her, sought for compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) with interest.

Upon hearing learned Advocates appearing for the

parties and on consideration of the pleadings of the

parties and the evidence on record, the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter be referred to as

the Tribunal), disposed of the claim application by

awarding the compensation as above.

As it appears from the judgment of the learned

Tribunal, the learned Tribunal, on assessment of the

evidence on record, has held that due to rash and

negligent driving on the part of the driver of the

offending vehicle, the accident took place and the

victim lost her life because of the accident. However, on

analyzing the evidence on record I do not find any

justification to differ from the findings recorded by the

learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, no appeal and

cross-objection has been preferred by the respondent,

S.B.S.T.C., challenging the findings as recorded by the

learned Tribunal. That being so, it stands proved that

due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle, the victim sustained

severe injuries on her person and she succumbed to

the injuries. Admittedly and as it appears from the

evidence on record, the victim, at the time of the

accident, was aged about 50 years. Therefore, it is not

in dispute that the learned trial Judge rightly adopted

the multiplier 13. What it transpires from the findings

of the learned Tribunal, the learned Judge has held

that the victim used to earn Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three

Thousand) per month. But, as has been held in a

number of decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Court,

monthly income of any labourer or a workman during

the year 2011-2014 shall be held to be of Rs.4,000/-

(Rupees Four Thousand) in the absence of any

documentary evidence in that regard. Learned Counsel

appearing for the respondent does not dispute that the

monthly income of the deceased should be assessed at

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month in the

year 2014.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants

submits that the learned Tribunal did not consider that

the claimants are entitled to compensation on the

count of future prospects. In such context, learned

Counsel for the appellants has cited a decision in the

case of National Insurance Company Limited -Vs.-

Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Placing

reliance on this decision, learned Counsel points out

that the learned Tribunal erroneously awarded

Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred) on

the counts of loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. But

in view of the decision in Pranay Shethi (supra) the

claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand) on the count of loss of estate; Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees Forty Thousand) on the count of loss of

consortium and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand) on the count of funeral expenses.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that if the claim as made by the claimants is

admissible to them in view of the decisions in the case

of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121

he will have no objection to it.

Since the learned Tribunal has failed to consider

that the claimants are entitled to 25% on the count of

future prospects and Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy

Thousand) on the counts of loss of estate, consortium

and funeral expenses, I think that the award passed by

the learned Tribunal needs modification in the

following manner:

 Monthly income                    = Rs.4,000/-

 Yearly income                     = Rs.48,000/-

 Rs.4,000/- x 12





 Future prospects            = Rs.12,000/-

 @25%

 Total -                     = Rs.60,000/-



 Deduction to the            = Rs.20,000/-

 extent of 1/3rd

 (on admission)



 Total -                 Rs.(60,000-20,000)/-

                             = Rs.40,000/-



 Adopting                  Rs.40,000/- x 13

Multiplier 13               = Rs.5,20,000/-

considering the

age of the victim

of 50 years




General damages,             = Rs.70,000/-

Loss of estate+
Consortium+
Funeral expenses


 Total -                       Rs.5,90,000/-

There is no objection on the part of the claimants

that if Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) as

spousal consortium which was admissible to the

claimant no.1 Amjed Khan, since deceased is equally

distributed amongst all the claimants.

Admittedly, as it appears from the order dated

December 22, 2017 of the learned Tribunal, the

claimants have already received Rs.3,21,500/- (Rupees

Three Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred) as

compensation. In such factual scenario, the claimants

are now entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,68,500/-

(Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Five

Hundred).

As it has been held in a catena of decisions and

since the interest of banking transaction does not

exceed 6% per annum, I feel that it will be wise to

direct the respondent to pay interest @ 6% per annum

on the awarded amount of money.

In view of the above, the appeal merits success and

accordingly the appeal is allowed on contest against the

respondent.

On modification of the award passed by the learned

Tribunal it is directed that the respondents shall pay

further compensation of Rs.2,68,500/- (Rupees Two

Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred) to the

claimants. The respondent is directed to pay interest @

6% per annum on the awarded amount of money from

the date of filing of the claim application.

The respondent shall pay interest @ 6% per

annum on the awarded amount of Rs. 3,21,500/-

(Rupees Three Lakh Twenty One Thousand Five

Hundred) to the claimants, if not already paid, from the

date of filing of the claim application till December 22,

2017.

The respondent is further directed to pay interest

@ 6% per annum on the further compensation of

Rs.2,68,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand

Five Hundred) from the date of filing of the claim

application.

The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid

further awarded amount of money with interest as

indicated above to the claimants namely Jasimuddin

Khan, Najimuddin Khan, Shamilla Bibi, Salima Bibi

and Manira Bibi in equal share by issuing separate

account payee cheques in their favour within six (6)

weeks from date.

With the aforesaid direction, the appeal being

F.M.A. 773 of 2022 and all connected applications, if

any, stand disposed of. However, there will be no order

as to costs.

Let urgent Photostat certified copies of this order,

if applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with all necessary formalities.

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)