Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Sangita Ghosh & Anr vs The Regional Manager on 3 November, 2022
18
03.11.2022
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 658 of 2008
Smt. Sangita Ghosh & Anr.
Vs.
The Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Krishanu Banik
... For the appellants/claimants
Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award passed on 29th April, 2005 by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in MAC Case
No.374 of 2004 granting compensation at Rs.18,36,860/-.
The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 arose out of an accident which took
place on 22nd January, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m. while the
deceased Mrinmoy Ghosh was knocked down by a Truck
bearing registration no. BR-13/7437 which was moving in
rash and negligent manner. Thus, claim petition was filed
with a prayer for compensation to the tune of
Rs.26,50,000/-.
Respondent no.1 owner of the vehicle and the
respondent no.2/Insurance Company contested this case
by filing their respective written statements denying all
material allegations in the claim petition alleged, inter alia,
2
that no such accident took place by the involvement of the
Truck, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.
In course of the trial, three witnesses were
examined. Amongst them, PW-1 and PW-3 have stated
about the accident and PW-3, being the eyewitness, proved
the accident and negligent driving of the Truck. PW-2,
Superintendent of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
has deposed in this case and proved the monthly income
of the deceased. Salary certificate was admitted in
evidence as Ext.14/1. On the other hand, no evidence was
adduced on behalf of the opposite parties.
In course of argument, learned advocate on behalf
of the appellants/claimants assailed the judgment passed
by the learned Tribunal on the ground that in assessing
salary, learned Tribunal committed wrong in deducting the
amount of Rs.8,378.19 showing in the salary sheet instead
of deducting statutory tax. In support of this contention,
he relied on a case reported in 2008 (1) TAC 424
(National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Indira
Srivastava & Anr.).
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants/claimants has further argued that the learned
Tribunal did not consider the general damages, future
prospect and interest on the award.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1/Insurance Company, in his usual
fairness, also conceded that according to the settled
3
principles of law, gross salary shall be taken into account
in computing monthly income only after deduction of
statutory tax. It has further been conceded on behalf of the
respondent no.1/Insurance Company that the claimants
are entitled to general damages, future prospect as well as
interest according to the provision of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
On careful perusal of the evidence on record
together with the judgment, I do not find any reason to
raise any question as to the happening of the accident
wherein Mrinmoy Ghosh, the husband of the claimant
no.1, sustained injury and died and the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck
bearing no. BR-13/7437.
If that be the position, after deduction of tax,
Rs.3958/- from the gross salary of Rs.21,072/-, it comes
to Rs.17,114/-.
In that view of the matter, I find no other option
but to compute the compensation in the following
manner:-
Annual Income Rs. 2,05,368/-
(Rs.2,52,864/- - Rs.47.496/-)
Add: Future prospect 50% Rs. 1,02,684/-
-------------------
Rs. 3,08,052/-
Less: 1/3rd Deduction Rs. 1,02,684/-
(Rs.3,08,052/- - Rs.1,02,684/-) -----------------
Rs. 2,05,368/-
Multiplier 17 (Rs.2,05,368/- x 17) Rs.34,91,256/-
Add: General Damages Rs. 70,000/-
Total Rs.35,61,256/-
Less - Awarded by ld. Tribunal Rs.18,36,860/-
ENHANCEMENT Rs.17,24,396/-
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation Rs.17,24,396/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.,
on 27th August, 2003, till the deposit of the amount before
the office of the learned Registrar General.
It is reported that the appellant/claimant has
already received Rs.18,36,860/- as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
The respondent no.1/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
Rs.17,24,396/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., on 27th August,
2003, till the actual deposit of the amount before the
office of the learned Registrar General of this Court within
six weeks from the date of this order.
The appellants/claimants will be entitled to
withdraw the enhanced amount with interest, subject to
additional ad valorem court fees on Rs.9,11,256/-.
The learned Registrar General will disburse the
amount among the appellants/claimants in the manner as
prescribed in the order of the learned Tribunal on proper
identification and subject to verification of the payment of
ad valorem court fees on the enhanced amount of
Rs.9,11,256/- by the appellants/claimants.
With the above observation, the appeal, being FMA
658 of 2008, stands disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, also stand
disposed of.
Records of the learned Tribunal be transmitted
back immediately.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
