Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Manju Roy & Ors vs The National Insurance Company ... on 31 October, 2022
09
31.10.2022
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMAT 7 of 2011
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2013 (CAN 2788 of 2013)
Smt. Manju Roy & Ors.
Vs.
The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
... For the appellants/claimants
Mr. Sanjoy Paul
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award passed on 18th September, 2010 by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 3rd
Court, Paschim Medinipur, in MAC Case No.439 of 2009
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
whereby the learned Judge awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,90,000/-.
According to the claim application, on 28th
September, 2009 at about 10/10.30 p.m. the victim
Buddhadev Roy was proceeding towards his house by
riding his bicycle and the offending motor-cycle, bearing
registration no.WB-34F/5704 coming with high speed
from the side of Belda and in reckless manner dashed the
victim. As a result, the victim sustained bleeding injury on
his person and died at Midnapore Medical College and
Hospital. It was further case of the claimants that the
2
victim was the only son of the appellant nos.1 and 2 and
used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and he was 19 years
old and that is why the appellants/claimants made a claim
of Rs.10,33,500/- towards compensation.
National Insurance Company Limited contested the
case by filing written statement denying all materials
allegations but the owner of the vehicle did not contest the
case.
On behalf of the appellants/claimants, three
witnesses were examined. All of them have corroborated
the factum of accident, age of the victim and other
particulars.
Learned Tribunal after considering all of the
evidence on record and also considering the age of the
victim and also in absence of any documents in support of
the income, returned his finding in favour of monthly
income of Rs.3,000/- per month and applied multiplier 16
in view of age of mother of the deceased and finally
granted award of Rs.3,90,000/-
Learned advocate on behalf of the appellants/
claimants submits that in view of the decision of Sarala
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, the multiplier would be 18 instead of 16. It has
been further submitted on behalf of the
appellants/claimants that the learned Tribunal did not
consider the future prospect and general damages.
3
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1/Insurance Company did not contradict
the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants/
claimants.
On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record
and the admitted age of the victim, I find it necessary to
calculate the compensation as follows:-
Annual Income (Rs.3,000/- x 12) Rs. 36,000/-
Add: Future prospect (@ 40%) Rs. 14,400/-
-------------------
Rs. 50,400/-
Less: 50% Deduction personal expenses Rs. 25,200/-
Rs. 25,200/-
Multiplier by 18 x 18
Rs. 4,53,600/-
Rs. 30,000/-
Add: General Damages
Total Rs. 4,83,600/-
Less - Awarded by ld. Tribunal Rs. 3,90,000/-
ENHANCEMENT Rs. 93,600/-
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation amount of Rs.93,600/- along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition,
i.e., on 25th November, 2011, till the deposit of the amount
before the office of the learned Registrar General.
In the aforesaid view of the case, the
respondent/National Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.93,600/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition i.e., on 25th November, 2009, till the
actual deposit of the amount before 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.
The learned Registrar General will disburse the
amount to the appellant/claimant nos.1 and 2 in equal
share on proper identification.
With the above observation, the appeal, being
FMAT 7 of 2011, stands disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, also stand
disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
