Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chinmoyee Mondal & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 17 August, 2023
17.08. 2023
item No.5
n.b.
ct. no. 551 FMAT(MV) 225 of 2022
Chinmoyee Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya,
Ms. Poonam Keswani,
Mr. Rajdeep Sinha,
.....for the appellants.
Mrs. Sucharita Paul,
.... For the respondent.
Deficit Court Fee has been paid by the appellants.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and award dated February 26, 2021 passed by
the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast
Track, 1st Tribunal, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in M.A.C.
Case No. 61 of 2014 and MA.C. Case No. 296 of 2014
under Section 166 of the M. V. Act.
The brief fact of the case is that the appellants being
the claimant filed an application before the learned
Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for getting
compensation on the ground that their predecessor has
died in a road traffic accident for rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle duly insured under the
policy of the present respondent/Insurance Company.
The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the
matter before the learned Tribunal. However, the
Insurance Company has contested the case by filing
written statement. The claimants have adduced oral and
documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal and
after hearing the parties, learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,46,526/- along with 6% interest per annum from the
date of filing of the case in favour of the claimants.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
judgment, the present appellants preferred the instant
appeal for enhancement of the award.
The sole ground of the instant appeal is that the
learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the
basis of the monthly income of the deceased notionally to
be Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, the submission of the
learned advocate for the appellants that the deceased was
a Manager of a business and used to earn Rs.9,000/-.
The employer deposed before the learned Tribunal as P.W.
2 and one salary certificate was also exhibited in relation
to which the learned Tribunal has not believed the fact of
employment of the deceased and erroneously considered
the income of the deceased Rs.4,000/-
Learned advocate for the appellants further submits
that the income of the deceased should be considered
Rs.9,000/- per month. The observation of the learned
Tribunal to that effect is erroneous.
Learned advocate for the Insurance Company raised
strong objection and submitted before this Court that a
sole document was marked before the learned Tribunal
which nothing but a letterhead which can be easily
procured.. He also pointed out that the business of the
p.w. 2 is not at all reliable.It is the observation of the
learned Tribunal that the alleged salary certificate
contained no registration number or licence number.
Thus, it cannot be believed. He argued that the
observation of the learned Tribunal is justified that the
income of the deceased was taken notionally Rs. 4,000/-
per month as he died in the year 2014. He again pointed
out that there is no chance to interfere with the instant
appeal.
Heard the learned advocates and perused the
materials on record, the sole ground of the appellant is the
income of the deceased. The claimant stated the income
of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. P.W. 2
appeared before the learned Tribunal to be the employer of
the deceased filed one handwritten certificate contained
that she used to give remuneration to the victim of
Rs.9,000/- per month.
It is true that the sole document of income, which
was exhibited before the learned Tribunal does not ipso
facto proved the business of the P.W. 2. The business has
to be proved by convincing documents i.e. I.T return/
licence/ registration number, Trade licence etc. However,
learned Tribunal observed that the income from the said
establishment is not believable. I find no discrepancy in
the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding non-proofing
of the business of the P.W.2.
However, the notional income was adopted in this
case to Rs.4,000/- per month but considering the number
of the claimants and considering the year of the accident,
the notional income of the deceased of this case should be
at least Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the same, the
impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby
modified.
Monthly income comes to Rs.4,500/-. Yearly
income comes to Rs.54,000/-. Considering the number of
claimants 1/4th is deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. So after deduction the early
dependency comes to Rs.4,500/-. The claimants are
entitled to get 10% of future prospects to the established
income of the deceased according to the direction of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Shetty.
The award is recusted as follows:
1. Income Rs.4,500/-
2. Annual income (4,500X12) Rs.54,500/-
3. Add 10% future prospect Rs.5.400/-
Rs.59,400/-
4. Less ¼ in 'personal expenses' Rs.14,850/-
Rs.44,550/-
5. Multiplier 11 (44,550X11) Rs.4,90,050/-
6. Add General Damages Rs.70,000/-
Rs.5,60,050/-
7. Less award already received Rs.5,46,526/-
Total balance Rs.13,524/-
The insurance Company is directed to deposit the
balance awarded amount along with 6% interest from the
date of filing of the claim petition with the office of the
learned Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of
passing of this order in the name of the
appellant/claimants vide four equal account payee
cheques subject to the ascertainment of payment of
requisite Court fees. On such deposit, the claimants are
at liberty to withdraw the same according to the prevalent
rules.
Accordingly, FMAT(MV) 225 of 2022 is disposed of.
All connected applications, if any, are also disposed
of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Subhendu Samanta, J.)
