Gauhati High Court
MACApp./300/2016 on 6 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010120772016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh )
Case No: MACApp. 300/2016
Smti Lakheswari Boro
W/O Sri Nathu Ram Boro,
Vill. Salana Rly Colony,
P.S. Khetri, Dist. Kamrup (M), Assam
...........Appellant/Petitioner
-Versus-
Md Abdul Rashid and 2 Ors
S/O Abdul Rajak, Vill. Batadrava Borbheti, P.O. Batadrava, Dist.
Nagaon, Assam, Pin Code-782122.
2. Md. Ajmal Hussain
S/O Md. Abul Kasem
Vill. Simaluati
Alitangani
P.S. Juria
Dist. Nagaon
Assam, Pin Code 782124
3.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mayur Garden
1st Floor
ABC Bus Stop
G.S. Road
Guwahati-
Page No.# 2/7
: ................................Respondents
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr. M. Talukdar
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Goswami
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2022
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 06.05.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner
as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
3/Insurance Company.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30/06/2016
passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) in MAC case
no 1959/2013.
3. The appellant as a claimant filed the claim petition before the learned
Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati, claiming compensation
for the death of her son Dhanjit Boro due to motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 13/09/2013.
4. The facts of the case in brief is that on 13/09/2013 the son of the
appellant/claimant Dhanjit Boro was proceeding to Barmanipur, Morigaon by riding
a motor cycle bearing no AS-02-K/7478 along with his elder brother (pillion rider) in
moderate speed. When they reached Charangkuchi, Jagiroad, suddenly another
Page No.# 3/7
vehicle bearing no AS-02-AC/0304 (207 TATA DI) coming from the same direction in a
rash and negligent manner knocked down the motor cycle in which the son of the
appellant was travelling. As a result of which both of them sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately they were taken to the hospital at Jagiroad for treatment but
subsequently they were shifted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati wherein son of the
appellant/ claimant Dhanjit Boro succumbed to his injuries.
5. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident. He was a
government employee, working as a police constable and his monthly salary was Rs.
16,441/-. The Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties vide Judgment and order
dated 13/06/2016 awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 12,75,672/- only.
6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order dated
13/06/2016 in MAC case no 1959/2013, this present appeal has been preferred.
7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial
Court erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 14,624/-
whereas there was sufficient evidence on record that the monthly income of the
deceased was Rs. 16,441/-. In that view of the matter, the award is liable to be
modified and enhanced.
8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned
Trial Court erred in considering the age of the mother of the deceased while
adopting the multiplier and thereby adopted the multiplier 13 while calculating the
loss of dependency. In fact, the age of the deceased ought to have been
considered while applying the multiplier and hence, as the deceased was 24 years of
Page No.# 4/7
age at the time of the accident, the multiplier 18 ought to have been applied instead
of 13.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Trial Judge
has failed to take into consideration the future prospect of the deceased while
calculating the amount of compensation. Considering the age of the deceased as
24 years, 50 % ought to have been added to the income of the deceased towards
future prospect while calculating the amount of compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/ insurance company
has agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating
that he has no objection if the prayers of the appellant are allowed.
11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both
sides and also perused the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 and the documents
available in the record.
12. It appears that the factum of accident has not been disputed in this appeal.
The appellant has preferred this appeal to enhance the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned Trial Court.
13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a government employee
serving in Assam Police since 22/02/2011 vide exhibit 6. Exhibit 7 is the identity card of
the deceased which shows that he was working as constable under the unit 16 th AP
(IR) Battalion at Barmanipur, Morigaon.
14. Regarding income of the deceased, salary certificate of the deceased is
Page No.# 5/7
available in the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 from which it reveals that the gross
salary of the deceased was Rs. 16,447/- for the month of August 2013 and deduction
of Rs. 208/- was shown as professional tax. Hence the monthly income of the
deceased was Rs. 16, 239/- which is taken into consideration in this case.
15. As per claim petition, the deceased was 25 years of age when the accident
took place. Vide exhibit 6 and exhibit 7 the date of birth of the deceased was
30/10/1988. The occurrence took place on 13/09/2013. It transpires that the age of
the deceased was around 25 years at the time of the accident.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in SLP (Civil) no 25590 of 2014 has held that 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 - 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 - 60 years, the addition should be 15 %.
17. In the present case, the age of the deceased was around 25 years when the
accident took place. Hence 50% be added to the established income of the
deceased i.e. Rs. 16,239- + 50 % = Rs. 16,239 + Rs. 8,120/- = Rs. 24,359/-.
18. As per the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in AIR 2009 (6) SC 121 the
multiplier would be 18.
19. In the case in hand, it appears that the deceased Dhanjit Bodo was a
bachelor. As such the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is
Page No.# 6/7
applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra). 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 the deceased been alive, he could have
spent 50 % for his personal and his living expenses.
20. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd v. Nanu Ram reported
in (2018) ACJ 2782 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Motor Vehicle 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.
21. In the case in hand, the appellant/ claimant Lakheswari Boro is the mother of
the deceased Dhanjit Boro as such she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the
death of her son.
22. As per SLP (Civil) no 25590 of 2014 ( National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay
Sethi and others) 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.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the computation of compensation is
awarded as follows -
a. Annual income of the deceased - Rs. 24,359 x 12 = Rs. 2,92,308/- .
Page No.# 7/7
b. After deducting 50 % of the income of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs.
1,46,154/-.
c. After multiplied with multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 1,46,154/- x 18 = Rs.
26,30,772/-.
d. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- .
e. Filial Consortium = Rs. 40,000/- .
f. Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/- .
g. Medical Expenses = Rs.10,000/-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = Rs. 27,10,772/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy Two Only)
24. In the result, appeal is allowed with aforesaid modification awarding Rs.
27,10,772/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two
Only) with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full
and final realization. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is directed
to discharge the liability of the award within a period of 30 days (Thirty days) from the
date of the receipt of the order. The amount already paid be deducted accordingly.
25. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to make
payment of the excess amount of compensation to the savings account of the
appellant/claimant Lakheswari Boro through NEFT. She is directed to furnish her bank
details of any nationalized bank to the insurance company for necessary payment.
26. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this Judgment.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
