Gauhati High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Protima Gour And Ors on 10 June, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010005862014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./54/2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE and HEAD OFFICE AT RECTIFIER HOUSE
570, NIGAM CROSS ROAD RD. WADALA, MUMBAI 400031 AND ITS
BRANCH OFFICE AT ANIL PLAZA, ABC, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, GUWAHATI OFFICE, ANIL PLAZA, G.S.
ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005
VERSUS
PROTIMA GOUR and ORS
W/O LATE PRODIP GOUR
2:DEEP GOUR
3:JIT GOUR
4:DEBASISH GOUR
THE CLAIMANT NO. 2 TO 4 ARE THE SONS AND DAUGHTER OF LATE
PORDIP GOUR.
5:SMTI KALYANI GOUR
W/O LATE GURUCHARAN GOUR
ALL ARE THE RESIDENT OF VILL. MOHANPUR PT-III
P.O. MOHANPUR
P.S. ALGAPUR
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/5
6:MD. IQBAL AHMED CHOUDHURY
S/O MD. KAWSAR AHMED CHOUDHURY
R/O VILL. LAHIRBOND
PT-II
P.S.HAILAKANDI
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-24-5286
7:MD. ALOM UDDIN LASKAR
S/O MD. K. ALI LASKAR
R/O VILL. KUCHILLA
P.S.HAILAKANDI
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS 24-528
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B S GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S DUTTA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 10-06-2021
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Borchetia, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
• This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.04.2012,
passed by the learned Member, MAC Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 780/2009.
3) On 16.05.2009, the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. AS
24-8438, as he was going from Hilakandi to his home town. When he reached near Algapur
Tri-junction, he stopped his motorcycle and at that time, one mini truck, bearing registration
Page No.# 3/5
no. AS 24/5288, knocked him from behind. The deceased was immediately taken to Silchar
Medical Collage Hospital. But ultimately he died there.
4) The deceased was a grocery shop owner and he was below 40 years of age. The
claimed income of the deceased was Rs. 12,000/- per month. Finally, the Court held that the
income of the deceased to be Rs. 12 years. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal calculated the
compensation as under :
Annual dependency (deducting one-fourth towards personal
expenses) =Rs. 82500/-
Multiplier x 15
= Rs. 1237500/-
Carrying of dead body =Rs. 2000/-
Funeral Expenses =Rs. 3000/-
Loss of consortium =Rs.2500/-
Loss of estate =Rs. 5000/-
Total =Rs. 1250000/-
5) The respondent filed a cross objection under order 41 rule 22 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908. It has been pleaded that the impugned judgment failed to award future
incremental enhancement of income as the deceased was below 40 years of age, there must
be an addition of 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospect.
The respondent also objected to the fact that the Tribunal only awarded Rs. 25,000/- under
the head of funeral expenses. The respondent further pleaded that an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- should have been added in the consortium head.
6) I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the leaned counsel
for the parties.
7) The learned counsel Mr. Goswami has objected to the fact that the monthly income of
the deceased has been erroneously decided at Rs. 12,000/- per month. The Tribunal held the
monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- on the basis of a certificate issued by the
Page No.# 4/5
Senior Settlement Officer (marked as Exhibit-9). This certificate was issued for the purpose of
getting a loan. Mr. Goswami submitted that for the purpose of ascertaining monthly income of
the deceased this certificate is irrelevant. Mr. Goswmi further pointed out before the Tribunal
that the Senior Settlement Officer was not examined to prove the said documents.
8) On this issue, I have decided to agree with Mr. Goswami. The learned counsel Mr.
Goswami submits that for a business man having grocery shop this Court in Goneswari Roy
Vs. B.B. Paul reported in 2019 ACJ 2378 notionally held the monthly income to be Rs. 4000/-
per month. It was a case of the year 2019. Therefore, in the year 2021 I have decided that
the monthly income of the deceased should be notionally held to be Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, the
monthly income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 10,000/-.
9) After the National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and others the
scenario has changed. The deceased was a grocer shop owner only. He was below 40 years
of age. Therefore, 40% of income should be added as future income. The deceased left
behind his wife, three children and his mother. Therefore one fourth of the income shall be
deducted
Income = Rs. 10,000/- per month
Yearly income = Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 4000= Rs. 1,24,000/-
Less one fourth = Rs. 94,000/-
Multiplier 15 x Rs. 94,000/-= Rs. 14,10,000/-
Loss of consortium
Loss of Estate = Rs. 70,000/-
Funeral Expense, etc
Total = Rs14,10,000 +Rs.70,000 = Rs.14,80,000/-
.
10) Thus, the respondent/claimant is entitled to receive Rs. 14,80,000/- only. The
respondenmt/claimant shall also be entitled to future interest at the rate of 6% per annum to
be calculated from the date of filing the appeal till payment.
Page No.# 5/5
Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross appeal is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
