Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rup Md. Ali Hossain & Ors vs Amal Kumar Samaddar & Ors on 30 January, 2023
09 30.01.
Ct 2023 FMA 507 of 2007
273
rup Md. Ali Hossain & Ors.
Versus
Amal Kumar Samaddar & Ors.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, ... For the appellants
Mrs. Sucharita Paul. ... For the respondent No.3
Mr. Animesh Das, ... for the Respondent No.4.
We are dealing with an appeal against the judgment
passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 191/2003
wherein learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Paschim
Medinipur, awarded a sum of rs. 1,66,000- as
compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles
Act on account of death of one Syed Hossain in a motor
accident by involvement of two vehicles i.e Ambasador
bearing No. WB-02/D-1577 and Bus bearing No. WB-
29/5159.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
award the instant appeal has been preferred by the legal
representatives of the deceased for the compensation to
the tune of Rs. 3, 82,500/-.
On 5th July, 2003 at about 1.30 PM., the accident
took place at Lawada on Ghatal, Panskura Road. The
ambasador car bearing No. WB-02/D 1577 was
proceeding towards Ghatal side through left side,
suddenly one bus bearing No. WB 29/4159 coming with
high speed and rash and negligent manner dashed
against the Ambasador car with great force as a result.
the driver of the car and other two persons sustained
injuries. They were taken to local village hospital and
thereafter they were shifted to NRS Medical Colleges and
Hospital, but on 11.07.2003 at about 3.30 PM, the said
Syed Hossain dies. It is stated in claim petition that
deceased being a man of 26 years used to earn of Rs.
3000/- per month from his profession as diriver.
Both the insurance companies in respect of two
vehicles contested the claim petition by filing their
respective written statement denying all averments of the
claim petition contending, inter alia, that claimants are
not entitled to any compensation, as prayed for.
To prove of the case one witness namely Gulmohor
Bibi, wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. In
course of her evidence, FIR, Charge-sheet, Seizure list,
and PM Report were admitted in evidence as exhibits 1
to 4.
Learned Tribunal considering the evidence on
record, though returned his finding regarding accidental
death of Syed Hossain by involvement of two vehicles
bearing WB-02/D-1577 and bearing No. WB-29/5159,
but with regard to compensation, learned Tribunal took
the monthly income as Ra. 2000 per annum, calculating
per day in come of Rs.80 for 25 days in month, and
thereby learned Tribunal assessed compensation after
applying multiplier 13 and also after deducting 50%
towards personal expenses and finally assessed Rs. 1,
66,000/- after adding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards
general damaged.
Both the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents/insurance companies submitted that
learned Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation in
terms of income of the deceased and both the learned
advocates on behalf of the insurance companies
supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
But, I am not agreeable with the observation of the
learned Tribunal with regard to the reasons assigned
before assessing the income of the deceased at the time of
death.
Considering the market price at the relevant point
of time, in my humble view, monthly income of the
deceased should be Rs.3000/- per month as it is evident
from the record that deceased was only earning member
of the family consisting of his parents, daughter and
brothers.
I am also not agreeable with the learned Tribunal
with regard to deduction towards personal expenses.
Learned Tribunal presumably did a mistake in deducting
50% towards personal expenses within meaning of
section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is not also
permissible to add general damages as Rs. 10,000/-
including the loss of consortium of Rs.4500/- as learned
Tribunal awarded the entire sum in favour of mother,
(PW-1), of the deceased.
From the aforesaid point of view I propose to modify
the compensation as follows:
1. Income Rs. 3000/- P/M
2. Annual Income (3000x12) Rs.36,000/- p.a
3. Multiplier 18 (age-26) (36,000x18) Rs. 6,48,000/-
4. Less 1/3rd as personal expenses Rs. 2,16,000/-
Rs. 4,32,000/-
5. Add general damages + 4,500
Rs. 4,36,500/-
6. Less award received Rs. 1,66,000/-
Total Rs. 2,70,500
Therefore Gulmohar Bibi, is entitled to
compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- out of which, it is
admitted by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant, appellant already received Rs.1,66,000/- from
the insurance companies/respondents.
Therefore, claimant Gulmohar Bibi is entiled the
balance amount of Rs. 2, 70,500/- along with interest of
Rs.6% per annum.
Both the insurance companies are directed to pay
Rs. 1,35,250 each along with interest at the rate of Rs.
6% per annum from the date (i.e.19.09.2003) of filing of
the claim application till the deposit of the amount before
the office of the Registrar General, within six weeks from
the date.
Registrar General is requested to disburse the
amount to the claimant, Gulmohor Bibi, on appropriate
identification and proof.
With the aforesaid observation FMA 507 of 2007
stands disposed. Pending application, if there be any,
also stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order along with Tribunal records
be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal immediately.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as
possible upon compliance with the all necessary
formalities.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
