Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Barnali Sahani & Anr vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & ... on 18 May, 2023
66
18.05.2023
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 1118 of 2022
Smt. Barnali Sahani & Anr.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Krishanu Banik
Mr. Tathagata Banik
... For the appellants/claimants
Mr. Deb Narayan Ray
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
This appeal has been preferred challenging the
judgment and award dated 2nd March, 2012 passed by the
learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Tamluk,
Purba Medinipur, in connection with MAC Case No.98 of
2009/49 of 2009.
The claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor
vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants on account of
death of one Soumi Sahani in a motor accident happened
on 31st December, 2008 at about 10.30 a.m. while she was
going to Panchrool High School by the Bus, bearing
registration no.WB-33A/4669, from Belda as passenger.
Near Egra central bus stand over Kharagpur Contai pitch
road, the driver of the bus suddenly pushed break and, in
effect, the victim sitting in the back side of the bus fell
down on the road and sustained severe head injury. She
2
was taken to Egra SD Hospital and thereafter shifted to
Medinipur Medical College and ultimately she succumbed
in the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. Therefore, the claim
petition was filed with a prayer for compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
National Insurance Company Limited contested the
claim petition by filing written objection denying all
averments in the claim petition contending, inter alia, that
the claimants are not entitled to any compensation, as
sought for.
To prove the case, claimants examined as many as
two witnesses. Father of the victim Sudip Sahani was
examined as PW-1 who corroborated the entire contents of
the claim petition. In course of his evidence, certified copy
of First Information Report, charge sheet, seizure list,
referral card, post-mortem report and voter's identity card
were admitted in evidence.
One Usha Rani Das Mahapatra was examined as
PW-2. She testified that at the relevant period of time
Soumi Sahani, i.e., the victim of this case, is to reside in
her house as tenant for the purpose of her study and
private tuition.
The learned Judge of the Tribunal after considering
the evidence together with documents on record, came to
his opinion that the award should be calculated on the
notional income of Rs.15,000/- as per Second Schedule of
3
the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal calculated the
compensation after applying multiplier 15. The total
compensation was calculated at Rs.1,54,500/- along with
interest @ 8% per annum.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate, appearing
on behalf of the appellants/claimants has submitted
before this Court that for calculation of the compensation,
income should be considered as Rs.3,000/- per month and
multiplier should be 16 instead of 15.
On the other hand, Deb Narayan Ray, learned
advocate, on behalf of the respondent no.1/Insurance
Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly
considered the annual income as Rs.15,000/- as per
Second Schedule.
So far as the accidental death of the victim is
concerned, no argument has been advanced before this
Court. That apart, from the evidence and documents
exhibited in this case, I find no reason to come to any
contrary view. Only quantum of the compensation has
been challenged in this appeal.
Considering the series of judicial precedents, I am
of the view that the income of the victim should be
recorded as Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income. So
far as the multiplier is concerned, it is 16 as per Second
Schedule and not 15.
4
In that view of the matter, I propose to re-assess
the compensation as follows:-
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 16 (as per age of the victim) X 16
Rs.3,84,000/-
Add: General Damages Rs. 4,500/-
------------------
Total Compensation Rs.3,88,500/-
Less: Awarded by ld. Tribunal & received Rs.1,54,500/-
-------------------
ENHANCEMENT Rs.2,34,000/-
-------------------
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellants/claimants are entitled to the total
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,88,500/-. It is reported
that the appellants/claimants have already received
Rs.1,54,500/- along with interest as awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to
the balance compensation amount of Rs.2,34,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition, i.e., 5th February, 2009, till the deposit of
the amount.
Accordingly, the respondent no.1/National
Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,34,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition, i.e., 5th February, 2009, 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 enhanced compensation amount with interest, subject
to payment of additional ad valorem court fees on the
amount of Rs.88,500/- (Rs.3,88,500/- - Rs.3,00,000/-)
before the learned Tribunal.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount with interest to the appellants/
claimants in equal share on proper identification and
proof.
With the above observations, the appeal, being
FMA 1118 of 2022, is 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.)
