Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sufal Durlabh vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 9 February, 2023
33
09.02.2023
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 82 of 2023
Sufal Durlabh
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Jayanta Banerjee
... For the appellant/claimant
Mr. Animesh Das
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 18th March, 2013 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District
Judge, 1st Court, Nadia, in connection with MAC Case
No.625 of 2005 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,10,500/-.
The claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on account of death of one
Susanta Durlov son of Gopal Durlov in a motor accident
reported to have been taken place on 28th October, 2005 at
about 22.30 hours, while the said Susanta Durlov was
standing near Debagram Petrol Pump on NH-34. At that
time, one Matador Van, bearing registration no.WB-
03/5620, proceeding towards Kolkata with high speed and
in negligent manner, all on a sudden, lost its control and
dashed Susanta Durlov who died on spot. At the time of
death, Susanta Durlov was aged about 21 years having
2
income of Rs.3,000/- per month. That is why the claim
petition was filed with a prayer for compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,15,000/-.
Originally, the claim petition under Section 163A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the parents of
the deceased, namely, Gopal Durlov and Sandhya Durlov.
Sandhya Durlov died during the pendency of the claim
petition and subsequently, during pendency of the appeal,
father Gopal Durlov also died and in his place son Sufal
Durlabh has been substituted and his name has taken
place in the Memorandum of Appeal.
Owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the
claim petition but the insurer of the vehicle, New India
Assurance Company Limited, contested the case by filing
written statement denying all material averments of the
claim petition.
To prove the case, one of the claimants Gopal
Durlov, father of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 who
corroborated the entire contents of the claim petition
including the amount of compensation. In course of his
evidence, First Information Report, charge sheet,
insurance policy, post-mortem report, voter identity card,
driving licence of the deceased were admitted.
After considering the evidence on record together
with the documents, the learned Tribunal assessed the
compensation on the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per
3
month and used the multiplier 17 as per Second Schedule
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and assessed the
compensation at Rs.3,10,500/- as just compensation.
The appellant/claimant preferred this appeal not
on the ground of computation of compensation but on the
ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the
interest on the awarded amount within the meaning of
Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as on
the issue of deduction of 50% which ought to have been
1/3rd also in view of the Second Schedule of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, learned advocate, appearing
on behalf of the appellant/claimant has submitted also in
the same tune as it has taken in the appeal also.
Mr. Animesh Das, learned advocate, appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.1/Insurance Company has
submitted that both the claimants, i.e., parents of the
deceased, died and another brother of the deceased was
substituted after eight years. Accordingly, Mr. Das has
tried to make this Court understand that for that delay,
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
However, it is no doubt that the deduction of 50%
under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is not permissible. Accordingly, deduction should be
1/3rd of the income.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, I determine the
compensation as follows:-
4
Monthly Income Rs. 3,000/-
Annual Income (Rs.3,000/- x 12) Rs. 36,000/-
Less: 1/3rd Deduction (personal expenses) Rs. 12,000/-
-------------------
Rs. 24,000/-
Multiplier by 17 (as per Second Schedule) x 17
Rs.4,08,000/-
Add: General Damages Rs. 4,500/-
-------------------
Total Compensation Rs.4,12,500/-
Less: Awarded by Ld. Tribunal & received Rs.3,10,500/-
-------------------
ENHANCEMENT Rs.1,02,000/-
------------------
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellant/claimant is entitled to the total compensation to
the tune of Rs.4,12,500/-. It is reported that the
appellant/claimant has already received Rs.3,10,500/- as
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the
balance compensation amount of Rs.1,02,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till 10th February, 2014 and the claimant is
also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of
Rs.3,10,500/- from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the deposit of that amount (Rs.3,10,500/-).
Accordingly, the respondent no.1/New India
Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the
balance compensation amount of Rs.1,02,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till 10th February, 2014 and the respondent
no.1/New India Assurance Company Limited is also
directed to deposit interest @ 6% per annum on the
amount of Rs.3,10,500/- from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the deposit of that amount
(Rs.3,10,500/-), before the office of the learned Registrar
General of this Court, within six weeks from the date of
this order.
The appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the
compensation amount with interest, subject to payment of
additional ad valorem court fees on the amount of
Rs.97,500/- (Rs.4,12,500/- - Rs.3,15,000/-) before the
learned Tribunal.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount with interest to the appellant/
claimant on proper identification and proof.
With the above observations, the appeal, being
FMA 82 of 2023, is disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, stand
disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned
Tribunal 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.)
