Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
237 vs Ramraj & Anr on 1 March, 2023
23 01.03. FMA 448 of 2011
RUP 2023 IA No. CAN 1 of 2010 (Old No. CAN 7930 of 2010)
Ct
237
V. Ramraj & Anr.
Vs
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Anr.
Mr. Probal Mukerjee. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suhrid Sur,
... For the applicants/claimants
Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee
... For the respondent no.1./Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment
passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Additional
District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore in connection with
MACC No. 368 of 2003 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, whereby learned judge awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,74,732.
One claim petition under Section 166 was filed on
account of death of one V. Rama Devi in an accident
alleged to have been taken place on 16.07.2003 at about
9.15 A.M., while the victim was crossing of Jawaharlal
Nehru Road and Shakespeare Sarani near Birla
Planetarium at Kolkata. At the relevant point of time
bus of route No. 41B bearing registration No. WBS-4769
ran over the said V. Rama Devi. She was taken to
hospital and declared dead. At the time of accident she
was an employee of Hindustan Lever Ltd, Kolkata and
used to earn gross salary was Rs.11,920.83/- per
month and net salary Rs. 10,373/- per month. She was
aged about 48 years at the time of accidental death.
That is why husband and son of the deceased filed
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, claiming compensation to the tune of
Rs.59,97,204/- (after amendment of the claim amount
of Rs.51,81497).
Owner of bus did not contest the claim
application whereas insurer i.e. New India Assurance
Company Limited contested the claim petition by filing
written objection denying all materials averments of the
claim petition contending, inter alia, that accident took
place due to laches on the part of the victim and
claimants are not entitled any compensation as prayed
for.
To prove the case, claimants examined five
witnesses namely the husband of the deceased as PW-1,
Haripada Roy, a traffic constable, as PW-2, Amal Kumar
Mondal, another traffic constable, as PW-3,
Satyendranath Chakraborty one of the colleagues of the
deceased as PW-4 and one Goutam Mukherjee,
Accounts Executive of Hindustan Lever Ltd., as PW-5.
PW-1, in course of his evidence, corroborated all
the averments of the claim petition. PW-2 and PW-3
testified in their respective evidence that on the alleged
day of accident they were performing their duty in the
Shakespeare Sarani and Jaharlal Nehru Road crossing.
At that time the vehicles stopped at the signal and
pedestrian were crossing Jaharlal Nehru Road from
Birla Planetarium towards Shakespeare Sarani and vice
versa. The victim was also amongst them but before
crossing the road signal was reversed victim was ran
over by bus bearing no. WBS-4769. She was taken to
SSKM Hospital where she succumbed to injuries.
PW-4 testified post occurrence incidents i.e.
formalities after death of V. Rama Debi.
PW-5 proved the salary of the deceased.
In course of evidence, a good number of
documents were admitted in evidence including the
Injury Report, Death Certificate, Postmortem Report,
First Information Report, Chemical Examination Report
of the vehicle, Pay Slip of the deceased etc.
Learned Tribunal after evaluation the entire
evidence on record together with the documents
returned his finding that claimants were entitle to
compensation to the tune of Rs.7,74,732/-. Learned
Judge has assessed the compensation on the net salary
in stead of gross salary after applying multiplier 13.
The appeal has been preferred on the issue of
quantum of compensation assessed by the learned
Tribunal. It is submitted by Mr. Probal Mukerjee,
learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the
claimants, submitted that the learned judge ought to
have been considered the gross income of the deceased
after deducting the professional tax only. That apart,
learned judge did not consider the future prospect as
well as general damages in view of the principle laid
down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs.
Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700.
Learned advocate Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee
appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company
supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
So far as accidental death of the deceased is
concerned, no specific argument has been advanced on
behalf of the parties to this appeal.
However, considering the evidence of PW-2 and
PW-3 together with First Information Report before the
police, I do not find any reason to discuss further on the
issue. PW-2 and PW-3 has proved, in course of their
evidence, that accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the bus bearing no. WBS-4769.
So far as the income of the deceased is concerned,
PW-5 testified in the case and proved the salary of the
deceased at the time of accidental death. It is not
disputed that her gross salary 11,920.83/, and it is also
seen from the record that Rs.110 was deducted towards
professional tax. Therefor, income of the deceased
ought to have been assessed after deducting the
professional tax from the gross salary. That apart
claimants are also entitled to future prospect of 25% of
the income of the deceased in terms of age of the
deceased at the time of death as well as general
damages of Rs.30,000/- in view of the principle laid
down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the aforesaid view of the matter I find it
necessary to modify the award as follows.
1. Annual Income 11,810.83 x12 = Rs.1,41,732
2. Deduction 1/3 (1,41,732- 1/3) = Rs. 94,488
3. Multiplier is 13 (94488 x13) = Rs.12,28,344
(age - 48 years)
4. Add Future prospect is 25% = Rs. 12,28,344
(12,28,344 x 25%) = + Rs. 3,07,086
Total Rs.15,35,430/-
5. Add General damages + 30,000/-
Total Rs. 15,65,430/-
Already received Rs. 7,74,732/-
Balance amount Rs. 7,90,698/-
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellants/claimants are entitled to the total
compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,65,430/-. It is
reported that the appellants/claimants has already
received Rs.7,74,732/- awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
Therfore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to
the balance compensation amount of Rs. 7,90,698/-
along with interest @6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition, i.e. on 7.11.2003 till the
deposit of the amount.
Accordingly, the respondent no.1/ New India
Assurance Company Ltd is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 7,90,698/-
along with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petitioner i.e.7.11.2003 till the actual
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 appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw
the balance compensation amount with interest.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount with interest to the claimant no. 2
i.e. husband (J. Venkataramanan) of the deceased on
proper identification and proof.
With the above observation, the appeal being FMA
448 of 2011 is disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, stands
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.)
