Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Namita Giri & Ors vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & ... on 23 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
FMA No. 143 of 2016
(FMAT No. 1356 of 2015)
Namita Giri & Ors.
Vs
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Krishanu Banik.
For the Respondent No.1/ : Mr. Sanjay Paul,
Insurance Company Ms. Jaita Ghosh.
For the Respondent No.2 & 3/ : None.
Owner/Proforma Respondent
Hearing concluded on : 22.08.2024
Judgment on : 23.09.2024
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Claimants against the
judgment and award dated 21st day of August, 2015 passed by
Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District
Judge, 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur (hereinafter called as the
Learned Tribunal Judge) in M.A.C. Case No. 153/150 of 2013/2005,
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. THE FACTS :-
".......On 26.06.2013 at about 07.00 pm the driver of
the involved vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.
W.B.-33/7241 drove the same in rash and negligent
manner along Itaberia-Henria pitch road with a very
high speed and when it reached near United Bank of
India, Bhupatinar, the driver lost his control over the
said vehicle and dashed the victim while the victim
was walking by the side of the road keeping left
towards Susila More. As a result the victim sustained
severe injury and expired on that day. Hence, the
petition for compensation.............."
3. The O.P. No.2 /United India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the
case by filing written statement denying all the material allegation. The
O.P. no.2 denied the manner of accident. He denied that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent act of driver of the offending
Truck but that the accident was caused due to the fault of the victim.
They also denied the monthly income of the deceased and further
stated the compensation claimed is arbitrary and excessive. The claim
petition is bad in law and is liable to be rejected with cost.
4. The O.P. no.1/owner did not contest the case in spite of valid service
of notice. Hence, the case was heard ex-parte against him.
5. To prove the case, the Claimants have examined three witnesses and
produced some documents which have been marked as Ext.1 to
Ext.10. On the other hand, the O.P. no.2 did not produce any oral or
documentary evidence in support of his defence.
6. Finally, the tribunal held as follows :-
"Dated 21st August, 2015
.........Now, if the monthly income of the deceased be
Rs. 6000/-, then his annual income would be Rs.
6000/- X 12 = Rs. 72000/-.After deducting 1/3rd of
personal expenses of the deceased from the annual
income, it stands as Rs. 48000/-. After multiplying 17
to Rs. 48,000/- it stands as Rs. 48,000/- X 17=Rs.
8,16,000/-. The claimant No.1 being the wife of the
deceased she is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as loss of
consortium. The claimants are also entitled to get Rs.
2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss
of estate. Thus, the total amount stands as Rs.
8,16,000/-+Rs. 5000/-+Rs. 2000/- + Rs. 2,500/- =
Rs. 8,25,500/-
According to this Tribunal, the said amount of
compensation of Rs. 8,25,500/- is just and
adequate..............
Sd/-
Judge, MAC Tribunal
Addl. Dist Judge, 2nd Court,
Contai, Purba Medinipur."
7. Being aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal on the
ground :-
That the Learned tribunal did not grant „Just Compensation‟
in the present case as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,
to which the claimant is entitled.
8. From the materials including the evidence on record, it appears :-
i) The tribunal has taken the income of the deceased (skilled
mason) as Rs. 6000/- p.m. There being no cross appeal by
Insurance Company, income be accepted as Rs. 6000/- per
month.
ii) Age of the deceased being 33 years, multiplier 16 shall be
applicable. (Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121))
iii) Future prospect shall be 40% of established Income. (National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC
680)
iv) Number of claimants being 3, 1/3rd of the victim's income is to
be deducted towards his personal expenses. (Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (Supra)).
v) General damages of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads
of Loss of estate: Rs.15,000, Loss of consortium: Rs.40,000,
Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000. (National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors.,(Supra)). General damages to be
enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. So 10% every
three year since 2017 on 70,000/- will be Rs. 84,000/-. (Being
20%).
9. Thus the "Just Compensation" in this case would be as follows :-
Monthly Income Rs. 6,000/-
Annual Income Rs. 72,000/-
(6,000 x 12)
Less : 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs. 24,000/-
expenses
Rs. 48,000/-
Add : Future prospects @ 40% of the annual Rs. 19,200/-
income of the deceased
Rs. 67,200/-
Multiplier x 16 (67,200 x 16) Rs. 10,75,200/-
Add: General damages Loss of estate: Rs. 84,000/-
Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium: Rs.40,000/-
Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/. (Rs. 70,000 +
20% = Rs. 84,000)
Total amount:- Rs. 11,59,200/-
10. Admittedly, the Claimants have received the amount of compensation of
Rs. 8,25,500/- together with interest in terms of order of the learned
Tribunal. Accordingly, the Claimants are now entitled to the balance
amount of compensation of Rs. 3,33,700/- together with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application till deposit.
11. Taking into consideration the amount already received by the
Claimants/Appellants, the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company shall
deposit the balance amount, along with the interest, with the learned
Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, within a period of six weeks,
who shall release the amount in favour of the claimants in equal
proportion, after payment of the amount for loss of consortium to the
claimant/wife, upon satisfaction of their identity and payment of ad-
valorem Court fees, if not already paid.
12. The appeal being FMA 143 of 2016/FMAT 1356 of 2015 stands
disposed of. The impugned judgment and award of the learned
Tribunal under appeal is modified to the above extent.
13. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Tribunal, along with the
trial court records, if received.
17. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
