Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Maya Bewa & Ors vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 31 January, 2023
02
31.01.2023
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 648 of 2006
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2007 (CAN 2253 of 2007)
(Application not in the file)
Maya Bewa & Ors.
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Mr. Golam Mastafa
... For the appellants/claimants
Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee
... For the respondent/Insurance Company
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 16th September, 2003 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court,
Murshidabad, in connection with MAC Case No.167 of
1992 whereby the learned Judge awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of
the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of one
Dr. Sirajul Islam in a motor accident stated to be occurred
on 21st January, 1992 while he was travelling by a Jeep,
bearing registration no.WGZ-6054, along with other
doctors after attending one village health fair held in
Domkal School ground. At the time of returning, one Bus,
bearing registration no.WMH-4704, coming from the
opposite side with high speed, dashed against the jeep. As
a result, Dr. Sirajul Islam sustained severe injury on his
person and immediately removed to Berhampore New
General Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The
claim petitioner was filed with a prayer for compensation
to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and subsequently the amount
was amended to Rs.3,00,000/-.
Owner of the offending bus did not contest the
claim petition but the insurer, i.e., Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, contested the case by filing written
statement denying all material averments of the claim
petition contending, inter alia, that Dr. Sirajul Islam was
not the passenger of the jeep and the claimants are not
entitled to any compensation.
To prove the case, the claimants examined as
many as three witnesses, namely, the widow of the
deceased was examined as PW-1, one Samsul Hoda was
examined as PW-2 and one Habibur Mondal as PW-3. In
course of their evidence, a good number of documents
were admitted in evidence.
Learned Tribunal assessed the compensation
taking notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum into
consideration. Learned Tribunal albeit assessed
compensation at Rs.1,70,000/- but granted compensation
to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- considering amount of claim
prior to amendment. That apart, learned Tribunal also did
not consider towards the heads within general damages.
In course of hearing, Mr. Golam Mastafa, learned
advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants
has submitted that the learned Tribunal should consider
the entire assessed amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and
presumably the learned Tribunal took an erroneous
decision in view of the claim amount in the petition prior
to amendment. It is further submitted that the amount of
compensation claimed in the application was amended up
to Rs.3,00,000/-. However, Mr. Mastafa, learned advocate,
appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted
that already assessed compensation may be given along
with general damages.
Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee, learned advocate,
appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance
Company supported the judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal.
From the judgment assailed in this appeal, it
appears that the learned Tribunal considered the notional
income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and assessed
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- after applying
multiplier 17 in terms of the age group of the deceased,
i.e., 30 to 35 years, but ultimately awarded compensation
to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
I am not agreeable with the aforesaid observation
of the learned Tribunal in view of the settled proposition of
law with regard to 'just compensation'. It is settled that the
learned Tribunal should consider the just compensation in
view of the facts and circumstances of each case
irrespective of the claim amount.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
humble opinion that the appellants/claimants are entitled
to Rs.1,70,000/- as well as Rs.9,500/- towards general
damages, totaling to Rs.1,79,500/-.
Ms. Das Mukherjee, learned advocate, appearing
on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company has
submitted that the appellants/claimants have already
received the statutory compensation of Rs.25,000/- under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is also
submitted that as per her instruction, Insurance Company
already deposited the awarded balance amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- by depositing six cheques before the learned
Tribunal.
Mr. Golam Mastafa, learned advocate, appearing
on behalf of the appellants/claimants has submitted that
all six cheques were lapsed in the meantime and nothing
was received by the appellants/claimants in respect of
balance awarded amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.
Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to
Rs.1,54,500/- (Rs.1,79,500/- - Rs.25,000/-) along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the payment.
Accordingly, the respondent/Oriental Insurance
Company Limited is directed to deposit the amount of
Rs.1,54,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit
of the amount before the office of the learned Registrar
General of this Court, within six weeks from the date of
this order.
The respondent/Oriental Insurance Company
Limited is at liberty to withdraw the cheques, if deposited,
before the learned Tribunal in respect of compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount among all the appellants/claimants
in the ratio as prescribed in the judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal.
With the above observation, the appeal, being FMA
648 of 2006, is disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, stand
disposed of.
Records of the learned Tribunal along with a copy
of this order be transmitted back 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.)
