Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
7 Smt Dipali Dutta & Ors vs Sri Dilip Paul & Anr on 15 March, 2022
11 15.03.
2022
AGM
/RKB
FMA 623 of 2004
Ct
07 Smt Dipali Dutta & Ors
Vs
Sri Dilip Paul & Anr
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh,
... For the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh,
Mrs. 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
appellants/claimants that claimants have been
suffering from financial distress for want of
sufficiency of money for their 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.
The appeal has emerged out against the
judgment and award dated December 23rd, 2003,
passed by learned Additional District Judge,
2
Midnapore, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 516 of
2002, on a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, granting award to the tune of Rs.
1,75,000/- to the dependents/claimants of the
deceased Debraj Roy, for a vehicular accident,
occurred on 13.03.2002 by reason of involvement of
vehicle bearing No. WB-34C/8148 in consequence of
rash and negligent driving.
Facts
leading to the death of the deceased are
not at all disputed.
In course of hearing of this appeal, all the
points are squeezed into four points
It is contended by Mr. Sanjit Kumar Ghosh,
learned advocate for the appellants/claimants that
Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the income of
the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, instead of
considering the monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- of the
deceased, who was having a furniture shop.
The second ground urged by the appellants is
that no future prospect was granted additionally on
the income of the deceased leading to inadequate
quantification of the award, which can hardly be
regarded to be just and proper.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the
appellants/claimants further submits that the
learned Tribunal adopted an erroneous multiplier of
14 in the instant case for the death of the 40 years
old victim. The correct multiplier is 15 and the same
should have been adopted for correct assessment.
Lastly, the appellants urge that the learned
Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs. 5,000/- under
the collective heads of general damages, which
should have been Rs. 70,000/-.
Mrs. Sucharita Paul, 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. She strongly
opposes the case made out by the appellants.
According to Insurance 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.
The Tribunal assessed the award holding the
income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum,
in a case, where the accident was admittedly held on
13th March, 2002. The deceased left this world, when
he was 40 years old being a victim of road traffic
accident.
Having considered the price index and the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the nature of
the business in which he was engaged, it will be most
reasonable for all purposes for the Court to hold the
income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month,
instead of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The assessment
of the income, as reached by the Tribunal, does not
appear to be on sound footing.
Upon consideration of the proposition of law
laid down in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as the general
practice and precedence of this Court, there should
have been addition of 25% towards the income of the
deceased on account of the future prospect. Denial of
such future prospect has thus necessarily prompted
the award to become inappropriate and not just as
such. The multiplier of 15 is applied here for proper
quantification of award, while modifying the
compensation amount, upon considering the
proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
Though general damages to the tune of
Rs.5,000/- have been awarded, but it should have
been Rs.70,000/- in view of the settled propositions
of law, as has already addressed by the Apex Court
and propounded by the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) referred hereinabove.
Having considered the submission of both sides
and upon considering the proposition of law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has
every reason to hold that appellants/claimants have
strong case to present thereby requiring this Court to
revisit the award for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove. The above award passed by the learned
Tribunal needs modification so as to make it just and
proper, and with this modification, there will be no
prejudice caused to either of the parties to this case.
Accordingly, the order passed by the learned
Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned
hereinbelow and recalculated as hereunder:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly income 3,000.00
Add 25 future prospect (+) 750.00
3750.00
x12
__________
45,000.00
rd
Less: 1/3 personal expenses (-) 15000.00
30,000.00
Multiplier of 15 to be used x 15
__________
4,50,000.00
Collective heads of General Damages (+) 70,000.00
5,20,000.00
Add Medical expenses (Rs. 30,000/-) 30,000.00
Already awarded by Tribunal 5,50,000.00
Less: Awarded amount (-) 1,75,000.00
Balance enhanced amount 3,75,000.00
The claimants acknowledge the receipt of the
entire awarded amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with
interest. The balance enhanced sum of Rs.3,75,000/-
would become payable to the claimants/appellants
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 claimants/appellants from the learned advocates
of the appellants.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal
is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected
applications, if any, are 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 be made by NEFT or RTGS
directly to the account of claimant. Department is
directed to send down the Lower Court Records
immediately, if received in the meantime.
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)
