Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ferdowsi Khatun @ Mondal And Ors vs National Insurance Company ... on 16 March, 2022
51 16.03.
2022
AGM
/RKB
FMAT (MV) 3 of 2022
Ct CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. 352 of 2020)
07 CAN 2 of 2021
Ferdowsi Khatun @ Mondal and Ors.
Vs
National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Mr. Muktakesh Das, ... for the appellants/claimants.
Mr. Rajesh Singh,
... for the respondent No.1
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 that since the appellants/claimants have
been suffering from financial distress for want of
sufficiency of money for their sustenance, the appeal
may be disposed of on the basis of materials
furnished by both the parties to this 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 20th November, 2021,
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal & The Court of Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - IV, Krishnanagar,
Nadia, in M.A.C. Case No.04 of 2018, on a claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
granting award to the tune of Rs.6,19,120/- to the
claimants/appellants for the death of one Alibuddin
Sk. @ Mondal in a vehicular accident dated 17th
February, 2017 by reason of involvement of vehicle
bearing No. WB-52/AD 4729 in consequence of rash
and negligent driving.
The compensation was awarded upon
consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary
with which the appellants were not satisfied. Hence
this appeal.
Mr. Muktakesh Das, learned advocate
representing the appellants/claimants, urges a
solitary ground pertaining to erroneous assessment
of income of deceased in support of this appeal. It is
contended by the appellants that Tribunal has erred
in law, in assessing the income of the victim
notionally at Rs.4000/- per month, instead of
Rs.7500/- per month earned at the relevant time of
accident, as the deceased was a Quack Doctor by
occupation. Mr. Das further submits that although
the claimants failed to produce any documentary
evidence before the Tribunal, yet considering the oral
testimony adduced by the claimants, the learned
Tribunal ought to have assessed monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.7500/- notionally.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate
representing the Insurance Company/respondent
no.1 without disputing with the facts leading to the
death of the victim submits that the award has been
rightly decided by Tribunal upon considering pros
and cons of the case. He strongly 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.
The deceased, a Quack Doctor, left this world
being a victim of accident, when he was
approximately 50 years and 01 month old, having
substantial income to maintain his dependents. The
accident admittedly occurred on 17th February, 2017.
Having considered the submissions advanced
by both the parties and bearing in mind the general
practice and precedence of this Court on the point of
monthly income, this Court finds substance in the
submission of the appellants. In the year 2017, a
Quack Doctor can be reasonably expected to be
having an income of Rs.5000/- per month. With
reference to price index the then prevailed, a monthly
income of Rs.5000/- does not appear to be
exorbitant.
The award passed by the learned Tribunal
needs modification after a revisit to the impugned
judgment in context with the solitary point raised in
the appeal 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 above order passed by the
learned Tribunal is thus modified to the extent
mentioned herein below and recalculated as follows:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income Rs.5000/-
Annual Income Rs.60,000/-
Less 1/5th for personal expenses Rs.48,000/-
(Rs.12,000/-)
Add 10% further prospects Rs.52,800/-
(Rs.4,800/-)
Multiplier13 Rs.6,86,400/-
Add General Damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total entitlement Rs.7,56,400/-
Less awarded amount Rs.6,19,120/-
Differential amount Rs.1,37,280/-
The claimants acknowledge receipt of the entire
awarded amount with interest, in terms of the
direction passed by the learned Tribunal. The
enhanced sum of Rs.1,37,280/- would become
payable to the appellants by the Insurance Company
together with interest assessed at the rate of 6% per
annum on and from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of payment.
Insurer is directed to make such payment in the
bank accounts of the claimants, in the same
proportion as directed by the Court below, through
RTGS/NEFT with in the period of 45 days form the
date of receipt of bank account particulars of the
appellants. 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.
With the aforesaid direction the instant appeal
is disposed of.
In view of this appeal, the connected
applications if any, are also disposed of.
. 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)
