Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
C & Cr vs The United India Insurance ... on 20 January, 2023
20.01.2023
Item No.12
Ct. No.654
CHC
(disposed of)
F.M.A.132 of 2021
IA NO: CAN/1/2020 (Old No: CAN/492/2020)
Smt. Gayatri Dolai & ors.
C & CR
Vs.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
...for the appellants/claimants
Mr. Sanjay Paul
...for the respondent no.1/Insurance
Company
This appeal is preferred against the judgement and
award dated 4th November, 2019, passed by learned
Additional District Judge -cum- Judge, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Asansol,
Paschim Bardhaman, in M.A.C Case No.60 of
2017/142 of 2016, granting compensation of
Rs.26,50,532/- in favour of the claimants along with
interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
With the consent of the parties preparation of
informal paper books is dispensed with.
The brief fact of the case is that on 2 nd January,
2016, at about 7:30 a.m. while victim was returning to
his residence at Bansra Colliery Quarter from his
relative's house at Mongalpur and he was waiting for a
bus on NH 2 near Mongalpur Jute Mill Kali Mandir
under P.S. Raniganj at that time the offending vehicle
bearing registration no. W.B 38F/5454 in a rash and
negligent manner dashed the victim, as a result of
which the victim sustained fatal injuries and died on
the spot. On account of sudden demise of the deceased
victim, the claimants being widow, mother and minor
son of the deceased filed application under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs).
The claimants in order to establish their case has
examined three witnesses and produced number of
documents which have been marked Exhibit 1 to 15
respectively.
The respondent no.1/Insurance Company also
adduced the evidence of medical officer of Medico Legal
District Hospital, Asansol and proved the inquest
report marked Exhibit A (with objection).
Upon considering the materials on record, and the
evidence both oral and documentary placed by the
respective parties before the learned Tribunal, the
learned Tribunal granted compensation of
Rs.26,50,532/- along with interest in favour of the
claimants.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgement and award, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellants/claimants submits that the
learned Tribunal erred in not granting future prospect
in favour of the claimants, and accordingly, the order
of the learned Tribunal requires to be modified.
He further submits that in view of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are
entitled to an amount equaling to 50% of the annual
income of the deceased towards future prospect.
Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned advocate for respondent
no.1/Insurance Company leaves the matter to the
discretion of the court.
Since respondent no.2 did not contest the claim
application before the learned Tribunal and the case
was disposed of ex parte against him, hence service of
notice of appeal upon the said respondent is dispensed
with.
Having heard the learned advocates of respective
parties, it is found that the present appeal hinges on
the sole ground of entitlement of future prospect of the
claimants.
It is found from the impugned judgement that the
learned Tribunal refused to grant future prospect to
the claimants on the ground that the deceased victim
studied up to class-VIII and was working in ECL as
undermine labourer and hence there is no future
prospect in such post in which the victim was engaged.
Be that as it may, following the observation of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra) since the deceased at the time of death
was in permanent job and was aged 29 years hence, an
amount equaling to 50% of the annual income of the
deceased should be taken into account towards future
prospect.
The other findings of the learned Tribunal have not
been challenged in the present appeal.
Bearing in mind the above factor, the calculation of
compensation is made hereunder:-
Annual Income Rs.2,27,694/-
Add. 50% future prospect Rs.1, 13,847/-
Rs.3,41,541/-
Less 1/3rd towards
Personal expenses (-) Rs.1,13,847/-
Total loss of annual
dependency Rs.2,27,694/-
Multiplier 17 (age 29) X 17
Rs.38,70,798/-
General damages Rs.70,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.39,40,798/-
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.39,40,798/-.It is informed that the claimants
have already received an amount of Rs.26,50,532/-
along with interest as granted by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to balance
amount of compensation of Rs.12,90,266/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application (i.e. on 29.08.2017) till deposit.
Respondent no.1/Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the balance amount of compensation of
Rs.12,90,266/- together with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application (i.e. on
29.08.2017) till deposit by way of cheque with the
learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, within
a period of six (06) weeks from date.
The appellants/claimants are directed to deposit
ad valorem court fees on the enhanced amount of
compensation, if not already paid.
Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, learned
Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, shall release
the amount in favour of the appellants/claimants in
equal proportion on satisfaction of their identity and
payment of ad valorem court fees if not already paid.
Appellant no.1, being he mother and natural
guardian of minor appellant no.3, shall receive the
share of the minor and shall keep the share of the
minor in a fixed deposit scheme of any nationalized
Bank or Post Office till the minor attains majority.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands
allowed against resppndent no.1-insurance company
and exparte against respondent no.2-owner of the
offending vehicle. The impugned judgment and award
of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the above
extent. No order as to costs.
All connected application, if any, stands disposed
of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order along with the lower court
records be sent to the learned Tribunal for information.
Urgent Photostat certified copy if applied for be
given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary
legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
