Gauhati High Court
New India Assurance Company ... vs Smti. Roma Devi And 3 Ors on 12 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010022712020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2316/2022
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE BUILDING
87
MAHATAMA GANDHI ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI-400001 AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-781005
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
SMTI. ROMA DEVI AND 3 ORS
W/O LATE M. SADANANDA SINGHA
R/O VILL. SRIBAR AWANG LEIKAI
P.O. LALONG PT-II
P.S. LAKHIPUR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
2:SRI M. SOMANANDA SINGHA
S/O LATE M. SADANANDA SINGHA
R/O VILL. SRIBAR AWANG LEIKAI
P.O. LALONG PT-II
P.S. LAKHIPUR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
3:SRI RAJESH SINGHA
S/O LATE RUPCHAND SINGHA
R/O VILL. RAMNAGAR
P.O. RAMNAGAR
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM. OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-01-E-7999.
4:SRI SURENDRA CH. DAS
S/O LATE ARUN CH. DAS
R/O VILL. SAIDPUR BORAKHAI
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM. DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-E-7999
------------
Advocate for : MR S DUTTA
Advocate for : MR. M TALUKDAR appearing for SMTI. ROMA DEVI AND 3 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 12.08.2022
Heard Mr. S.Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Musahary for
the Appellant, Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Opposite Party Nos.1and 2 and Ms. P. Mahantas, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No.4.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the name of
the Respondent No.4 may be struck off. Accordingly, on the submission of the learned
counsel for the Respondent No.4, the name of the Respondent No.4 is struck off from
the array of Respondents.
This is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 for stay of the impugned judgment
and award dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No.1408/2014.
From a perusal of the grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal, it transpires that
the pivotal ground taken that the deceased was a pensioner and his widow would be
entitled to the said pension after deducting a certain portion and further the question
of future prospects does not arise.
The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the claimants would be entitled
Page No.# 3/3
to the compensation on the conventional heads and nothing more than that. The
learned Senior Counsel further submitted that by the impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal below had not taken into consideration that the claimants would be
entitled to the pension of the deceased and adjudged as compensation by taking into
account the pension receivable while calculating the loss of dependency.
On the other hand, Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Claimants submits that the family pension cannot be deducted while calculating
the just and fair compensation in terms with Section 168 of the Workmen
Compensation Act.
Taking into consideration the above, this Court stays the impugned judgment
and award dated 25.09.2019 passed in MAC Case No.1480/2014 subject to deposit an
amount of Rs.1,21,000/- before the Registry of this Court within 6 (six) weeks from
today. The Claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount by filing necessary
application before the Registry of this Court.
Taking into account that only a minuscule part of the award had been directed
to be paid by way of this order, the Registry is directed immediately call for the LCR
and list it for hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
