MACApp./127/2013
2022 Latest Caselaw 166 Gua

                                                                                Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010006462013




                  THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
               (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

                               PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI


                                   MAC Appeal No. 127/2013


1.     The National Insurance Company Limited (subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation
of India) registered head office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta-700071, represented by the
Assistant Manager, Gauhati Regional Office, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781005.

                                                                                ...... Appellant
                                   -Versus-



1.    Smti. Tarulata Gogoi,
W/o Late Dinaram Gogoi,
R/o Sotai Kheronimari Gaon,
P.S. Jorhat.
District- Jorhat, Assam.
                                                                              ......and another
                                                                             ......Respondents

Page No.# 2/12

Before HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. R.D. Mozumdar.

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. P. Bhattacharjee.

Date of Hearing               :               13.12.2021.
Date of Judgment              :                19.01.2022.


                                    JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act 1988 against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 passed by learned Member, MACT, Jorhat awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 1,82,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand) only in favour of the respondent/claimant in MAC Case No. 18 of 1998.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.11.1996 at about 1:00 P.M. the son of the claimant (Prem Kanta Gogoi) was riding a scooter bearing Registration No. AMU-7018 being owned by one Sri Suren Dutta. He was coming towards Jorhat town from Pulibar side. According to the claimant, one vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01 B/3101 (Recovery Van) knocked down her son Prema Kanta Gogoi as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was shifted to A.G. Nursing Home, Jorhat. As his condition was critical the injured was referred to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital. Thereafter, the injured was brought to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, where he died on the next date. The claimant further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Recovery Van bearing No. AS-01 B/3101 and thereafter, the claimant being the mother of the deceased, filed, the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation Page No.# 3/12

for the death of her son.

3. During trial 3(three) witnesses were examined including the claimant. The claim case being No. MAC Case No. 18/1998 was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the witnesses examined by the claimant were not present when the accident occurred as such the claimant failed to establish that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.

4. Against the judgment for dismissal the claimant preferred an appeal before this Court and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction that the parties shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence afresh in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, the claimant examined 2(two) other witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, but the insurance examined none.

5. After hearing both sides learned Tribunal delivered the judgment as aforesaid allowing compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent. Hence this appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company with a prayer to exonerate the appellant to pay any compensation.

6. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in observing the fact that the claimant failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle insured with the appellant company. Thus, the judgment deserves to be interfered with. It is further argued that admittedly the deceased was in a scooter at the relevant time of accident and the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the deceased himself. As such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his submission, learned Page No.# 4/12

counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws:-

1. (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Jhuma Saha And Ors.

2. Abdul Jiat Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. in connection with MAC Appeal No. 60/2016.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant/respondent argued that in a motor vehicle accident case parties are to prove his case on pre-ponderance of probability and not on beyond reasonable doubt like criminal cases. Under such backdrop, claimant has proved her case by adducing evidence and producing some documents which is sufficient to award compensation in favour of her.

8. To succeed in the claim petition in view of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, it is for the claimant to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Mother of the deceased i.e. the claimant and 4(four) other witnesses were examined in this case and they were cross-examined. P.W. 1, 2 and 3 admittedly were not the eye-witnesses to the accident. As P.W. 4 and 5 were examined after remand of the case, as such their presence on the spot creates some doubt as it appears from their evidence that they were not interrogated by police in connection with the alleged accident and they were not examined as witnesses in the Court.

9. On the other hand, appellant/Insurance Company did not examine any witness to rebut the contentions and deny the claim of the claimant/respondent and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the claimant. No witness was produced or examined by the Insurance Company as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the driver of Page No.# 5/12

the alleged offending vehicle was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

10. I have gone through the record of MAC Case No. 18 of 1998 and the documents available thereon in respect of the accident which resulted in death of the deceased and which is prima-facie suggestive of negligence of driver of the vehicle. It reveals from the record of MAC Case No. 18 of 1998 that after the accident one case was registered vide Pulibar P.S. Case No. 104/96 under Section 279/338/304 A IPC. It also reveals from the record of MAC case No. 18 of 1998 that the said criminal case was called for during trial of MAC Case from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat and after completion of trial the record was sent back. It transpires that as the case was pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial, definitely charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.

11. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Basant Kaur and others vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors. reported in 2003 ACJ 369 MP(DB), wherein it had been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil cases and hence strict rule of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:

Page No.# 6/12

"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. 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."

13. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., reported in 2014(2) T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side.

14. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the offending case.

15. In the case of Kaushnumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and Page No.# 7/12

negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a panel one.

16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition as well as criminal case record, it is proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 12.11.1996 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01B/3101 (Recovery Van) and learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation by holding the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle and the claimant is entitled to get compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

17. Regarding compensation Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurdayal Singh reported in 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non-pecuniary heads of damages (e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).

18. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In the case of General Manager Page No.# 8/12

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:-

"Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on

the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.

20. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective, Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication.

21. Coming to the case in hand, it reveals from the record of MAC Case No. Page No.# 9/12

18 of 1998 that the accident occurred in the year 1996. The claimant has claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 5, 00,000(Rupees Five Lakhs) showing the income of his son around Rs. 2,000/- in a month as Salesman in a company M/S Abinash India, Katakipukhuri, Jorhat. From the evidence of P.W. 4, it reveals that the deceased was working in a hotel which was adjacent to his shop (P.W.

4) and the fact of working in the hotel by the deceased was not denied by the Insurance Company either by adducing any evidence or producing any document. As such monthly income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 2,000/-.

22. According to the claimant, her son was 20 years of age at the time of accident. Post-Mortem Report is available in the record which shows that the deceased was 22 years of age when the accident took place. Apart from that the claimant has also produced one school certificate of her son Prema Kanta Gogoi which shows that the date of birth of the deceased was 08.01.76. The accident occurred on 12.11.1996. It transpires that the deceased was around 20 years of age at the time of accident, which can be taken in to consideration in this case.

23. As per the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, [AIR 2009(6) SC 121 ] the multiplier would be 18.

24. In the instant case, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor. As such, the standardized deduction towards personal and living expense of deceased is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma(supra).

25. Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case, 50 % of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had Page No.# 10/12

the deceased been alive, he could have spent 50% for his personal and living expenses.

26. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of 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 40-50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.

27. In the case in hand, the age of the deceased was around 20 years when the accident took place. So 40 % should be added along with his established income of Rs.2, 000. Hence, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 2,000X40%= 2000+800=Rs. 2800/-.

28. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ 2782] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.

In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to the father and sister of the deceased.

Page No.# 11/12

29. In the case in hand, the claimant is the mother of the deceased as such she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the death of her son.

30. As per SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs- Pranay Shethi & Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads namely- Loss of estate and Funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion the computation of compensation is awarded as follows:-

a)    Annual income of the deceased= Rs.2800X12=

                                           Rs.33,600/-.

b) After deducting 50% of the annual income of the deceased the amount comes to = Rs.16,800/-

c) After multiplied with multiplier the amount comes to

= Rs.16,800/-X18=3,0,2400/-

d)    Funeral expenses= Rs.15,000/-.

e)    Filial Consortium = Rs.40,000/-.

f)    Loss of Estate=Rs.15,000/-.

          _______________________________
                                                                     Page No.# 12/12

Total Rs.3,72,400/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand and Four Hundred) only/-.

32. In the result appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification awarding Rs. 3,72,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand and Four Hundred) only/- as compensation to the claimant. The compensation so awarded will carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization.

33. The National Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Savings Account of the claimant/respondent No. 1 through NEFT within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The claimant/respondent No. 1 is directed to furnish her bank details of any nationalized bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment.

34. Any amount of compensation if paid earlier be adjusted accordingly.

35. Statutory amount in deposit be returned accordingly.

36. LCR be returned.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant