Page No.# 1/7 vs Divisional Manager United India ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3027 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010002672015




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : MACApp./434/2018

            MUSTT NASIMA KHATUN and 2 ORS
            W/O LATE ANUWAR HUSSAIN

            2: MUSTT. RAHIMA KHATUN

             W/O LATE ABDUL KADIR

            3: MD. IFTIKAR ALAM
             S/O LATE ANUWAR HUSSAIN
            ALL ARE R/O VILL. HATIMURIA
             P.O. MAIRABARI and P.S. MAIRABARI
             DIST. MORIGAON
            ASSAM APPELLANT NO. 3 BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HIS
            MOTHER
            APPELLANT NO.

            VERSUS

            DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD and ANR
            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-1, ULUBARI,
            NEAR BORA SERVICE STATION, GUWAHATI-7

            2:DHANANJAY KT. HALDAR
             S/O LATE CHANDRA KT. HALDAR
            VILL. NA-BHETI
             LOOKAPRIYA PATH
             P.O. and P.S. MORIGAON
             PIN CODE 782105
             DIST. MORIGAON
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K DEY (R-1)

Page No.# 2/7

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral)

Heard Mr. M Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. KK Dey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 03.03.2014 passed in MAC Case No. 72/2011 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Morigaon, whereby an amount of Rs. 6,65,000/- was adjudged as the fair compensation in terms with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988.

3. The appellants are aggrieved by the award on the ground that the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,19,915/- has not been granted by the Tribunal; and the funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate as well as future prospect have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in terms of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranoy Shetty reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

4. It is the case of the appellant as submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal below did not properly appreciate the evidence of PW1 in so far as the medical expenditure in question inasmuch as a perusal of the evidence of PW1 as well as PW2 would go to show that after the accident on 23.12.2010 of Anowar Hussain (the deceased) he was immediately rushed to Moirabari Civil Hospital and after taking preliminary treatment he was referred to Guwahati wherein he initially took treatment from 23.12.2010 to 27.12.2010 at Dispur Hospital and thereafter from 27.12.2010 to 29.12.2010 at the GNRC Hospital and this aspect of the matter is apparent from the Ext. No. 8 to Ext No.

57. He further submitted that the fact that he was under treatment under GNRC Hospital at time of his death would also be seen from perusal of the postmortem report wherein it has also been mentioned that the deceased was brought for postmortem from GNRC Hospital. He also submits that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 along with the exhibits stood un-rebutted as Page No.# 3/7

there was no cross-examination made to the said witnesses.

5. On the other hand, Mr. KK Dey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in the claim petition the case of the appellant is that on 23.12.2010 the accident happened and thereafter treatment at Moirabari Civil Hospital he came to Guwahati and thereafter his postmortem was done at GMCH. He further submitted that in the claim petition the amount claimed was Rs. 70,000/- and there is no mention about the treatment of the deceased at Dispur Hospital or at GNRC Hospital. To the said submission, Mr. Talukdar submits that in the claim petition although there is no mention that there was treatment at GNRC Hospital or Dispur Hospital and the claim was made @ Rs. 70,000/- but the provision of Section 166 of MV Act stipulates that there should be just and fair compensation which also includes expenses in respect to the medical expenditure. As regards the variance with the pleadings and the proof he submits that the same need not be strictly looked into because the basis aim behind the Section 166 of the MV Act is adjudication of just and fair compensation to the claimant and in that regard he referred to a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2018 (5) SCC 656 and in that regard he referred to paragraph 22 and 23 which is quoted hereinbelow:

"22. The question is : Whether this approach of the High Court can be sustained in law? While dealing with a similar situation, this Court in Bimla Devi noted the defence of the drive and conductor of the bus which interalia was to cast a doubt on the police record indicating that the person standing at the rear side of the bus, suffered head injury when the bus was being reversed without blowing any horn. This Court observed that while dealing with the claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the Tribunal strict to sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties, its function is to determine the amount of fair compensation . In paras 11-15, the Court observed thus (SCC pp 533-343).

"11 While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 a tribunal strict to sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be ignored only on the basis of a post - mortem report vis-a-vis the averments made in a claim petition.

Page No.# 4/7

12. The deceased was a constable. Death took place near a police station. The post- mortem report clearly suggests that the deceased died of a brain injury. The place of accident is not far from the police station. It is , therefore, difficult to believe the story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the bus and in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a blanket. If the death of the constable had taken place earlier, it is wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town like Dharampur would remain undetected throughout the night particularly when it was lying at a bus stand and near a police station . In such an event, the court can presume that the police officers themselves should have taken possession of the dead body.

13. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely implicate Respondents 2 and 3. The claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She , therefore, might not be aware of the details as to how the accident took place but the fact that the first information report had been lodged in relation to an accident could not have been ignored.

14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents No. 2 and 3.

15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matte. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability . The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose , the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.(emphasis supplied). The court restated the legal position that the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with the motor accident cases. Even in that case, the view taken by the High Court to reverse similar findings , recorded by the Tribunal was set aside.

23. Following the enunciation in Bimla Devi case this court in Parmeshwari V Amir Chand noted that when filing of the complaint was not disputed , the decision of the Tribunal ought not to have been reversed by the High Court on the ground that nobody came from the office of the SSP to prove the complaint. The Court appreciated the testimony of the eyewitnesses in paras 12 & 13 and observed thus: Parmeshwari Case , SCC p 638).

"12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by Page No.# 5/7

way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh ,PW 1 . Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural . Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Uemd Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.

13. The other so called reason in the High Court's order was that as the claim petition was filed after four months of the accident the same is " a device to grab money from the insurance Company". This finding in the absence of any material is certainly perverse. The High Court appears to be not cognizant of the principle that in a road accident claim , the strict principles of proof in a criminal case are not attracted....."

6. I have perused the impugned award wherein the tribunal below had rejected the claim of Rs. 1,19,958/- primarily on the ground that the PW1 is very much silent about the issuance of vouchers on the same date by two different hospitals for treatment of the same person. Further to that Ext No. 55 and 57 the Tribunal below rejected it as they were return memos of GNRC Hospital for returning the medicines to the said GNRC Pharmacy which could not have been included. Further, the learned Tribunal also rejected the said claim of medical expenditure on the ground that in the claim petition it was mentioned that the deceased was treated at GMC, but the evidence of the claimant was contrary to that.

7. I have given deep consideration to the matter and taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manglaram (supra) and the un-rebutted evidence led by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal below had committed error in rejecting the said medical expenditure except the expenditure in respect of Ext. Nos. 55 and 57 which were the return memos. Accordingly after making the necessary calculation the total amount which is the medical expenditure to which the claimants are entitled would be Rs. 1,15,869/-

8. As regard the second aspect of the matter as to whether the Tribunal below was justified in not taking into consideration the future prospect to which the claimants were entitled to, the funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate for the purpose of fixing the just and fair compensation, it shall be relevant to quote the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Pranoy Shetty (supra) at paragraph 59 and the same is quoted hereinbelow:

Page No.# 6/7

"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years . "

9. In terms with the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration that it is admitted fact that the deceased was self employeed, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% on account of future prospects. On account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/-, 40,000/- and 15,000/- respectively.

10. Accordingly, in view of above, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation.

      (a) Loss of Dependency               : Rs. 8,96,064/-.

      (b) Funeral expenses                 : Rs. 15,000/-

      (c) Loss of consortium              : Rs. 40,000/-

      (d) Loss of estate                   : Rs. 15,000/-
                                                                                           Page No.# 7/7

      (e) Medical expenses                  : Rs. 1,15,869/-

                  Total                 Rs. 10,81,933/-

11. Therefore, in the result, the instant appeal is allowed and the award dated 11/06/2012 passed in MACT Case No. 60/2010 is modified granting to the appellant a total compensation of Rs. 10,81,933/- (Rupees ten lakh eighty one thousand nine hundred thirty three). The same shall be payable with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

12. The respondent No. 1 is directed to deposit the remaining part of the compensation after making the adjustment of the payment so made, within a period of 2(two) months from today, before the Tribunal.

13. With the above observation, the instant appeal is disposed off. The Registry is directed to send back the records.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant