Gauhati High Court
MACApp./78/2015 on 19 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010114922015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MAC APPEAL NO.78 OF 2015
National Insurance Company Limited, having its Registered
Office & Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata and its
Regional Office at G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati and
represented by the Chief Regional Manager, Guwahati
Regional Office, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati.
......Appellant
-Versus-
1. Md. Raket Ali,
Son of Late Nasir Ali.
2. Mrs. Nurun Nessa Bibi,
Wife of Md. Raket Ali
Both are residents of Village: Narayanpur, PO & PS:
Mukalmua, District: Nalbari, Assam.
......Claimants
3. Shri C.N. Sikdar,
Care of Md. Nagaraju,
Resident of D/102, Stage-II, D-Type Quarter, NTCP, Kaniha,
District: Angul, Orisha [Owner and driver of the Vehicle
No.OR-19/L-9293 (Motor Cycle)]
......Respondent
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. P.K. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 : None appears
Date of judgment & order : 19th September, 2022.
Page No.# 2/4
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & award
dated 17.11.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup
at Guwahati in MAC Case No.1054/2012, the Insurance Company has
preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter after referred to as "1988 Act" for the sake of brevity).
2. The following facts emerge from the record of this appeal. It is
the case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants that their son Manowar
Hussain succumbed to the injuries received in an accident which took place
at Mukalmua Chowk on 04.01.2012 as he was hit by a motorcycle bearing
registration No.OR-19/L-9293. It is the case of the claimants that when the
deceased reached the scene of accident, i.e. Sapkata, one cyclist tried to
cross the road and at that moment to save the cyclist, he fell down on the
road and at that moment he was knocked down by the aforesaid motor
cycle, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. It is the case
of the claimants that their son sustained serious injuries and ultimately
succumbed to the same during treatment on 05.01.2012.
3. An FIR was lodged with Mukalmua Police Station, which was
registered as Mukalmua P.S. Case No.13/2012 for alleged offences under
Sections 279/304(A)/427 IPC. Thereafter, the present claim petition under
Section 166 of the 1988 was filed claiming a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as
compensation, wherein it was claimed that the deceased was 22 years old
and was a businessman and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
Page No.# 3/4
4. Oral as well as the documentary evidence was adduced before
the Tribunal and the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition,
awarded a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
5. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/
Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants. None appears for the
respondent No.3.
6. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
Insurance Company has raised a sole ground to the effect that the Tribunal
has committed an error while applying the multiplier. According to Mr. R.
Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company,
the multiplier has to be based upon the age of the claimant and not the
deceased. On the aforesaid ground, it was contended by Mr. R. Goswami,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the
appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal deserves to be modified.
7. Per contra, Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants has opposed this appeal. Mr. P.K. Goswami
contended that the appeal is bereft of any merits as the sole ground which
is raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sarala Verma (SMT) & Ors. -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation ,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as National Insurance Company
Page No.# 4/4
Limited -Vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and it
was contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in applying the
multiplier considering the age of the deceased and not considering the age
of the claimants and submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
8. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have
been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
9. Considering the binding decisions of the Apex Court, the Tribunal
has committed no error in reckoning the age of the deceased while
determining which multiplier. The multiplier is to be fixed as per the age of
the deceased and not the claimants. Hence, the sole ground raised in this
appeal being meritless, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
10. The Registry is directed to send back the LCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
