Gauhati High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs X on 28 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010267232018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./171/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, ULUBARI,
KAMRUP(M) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI
REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
x
XX
2:SUKURJAN NESSA
W/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
3:MISS HASINA KHATUN
D/O LATE HASEN ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
4:MISS TASMINA KHATUN
D/O LATE HASEN ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
PIN 781308
5:RASHIDUL ISLAM
S/O LATE HASEN ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
6:RAFIQUL ISLAM
S/O LATE HASEN ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
7:SUMEJ ALI
S/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
8:HANIF ALI
S/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
9:PIAR ALI
S/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
10:JAHEDUL ISLAM
S/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/7
PIN 781308
11:MRS. JAMELA KHATUN
D/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
12:AMELA KHATUN
D/O SIDDIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
13:MRS. JAMELA KHATUN
W/O HASEN ALI
R/O VILL. MOURIRPAM (MUHURIRPAM)
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
14:TAHIBUL ISLAM
S/O CHAND MAMUD
R/O VILL. BARDALONI
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781308
15:MAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O JAONUDDIN
R/O VILL. MOURIPAM
P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR R ALI (R
Page No.# 4/7
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Ms. RD Mazumdar
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. M.U. Mondal
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2022.
Date of Judgment : 28.09.2022.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned counsel representing the appellant as
well as Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 against the judgment dated 18.11.2017 passed by the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta in MAC Case
No.237/2012.
3. On 14.11.2011 at about 8 P.M., the deceased Hasen Ali was hit by
motorcycle driven by Mahidul Islam. As a result of the accident, the
deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital where
he was declared dead.
4. A claim application was filed seeking compensation. The appellant
being the Insurance Company of the aforesaid motorcycle, contested
the claim application by filing written statement.
5. The driver of the motorcycle Mahidul Islam also contested the claim
Page No.# 5/7
application by filing a separate written statement. He has claimed that
he had a valid insurance and therefore he has no liability to pay any
compensation.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
(i) Whether the alleged motor accident had taken place on
14.11.2011 at about 8:00 P.M. at Mandia Bazar Tiniali due to rash and
negligent riding on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing
registration No.AS-15/E-5032 (Bajaj Pulser) and consequently Hasen Ali
died ?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, as prayed
for ?
(iii) If they are so entitled, by whom it is payable and to what extent ?
7. The respondent examined witnesses. On the basis of the evidence
on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.12,95,000/- along
with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from the date of
filing of the claim petition.
8. On being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed
the instant appeal on following grounds:
(a) The Tribunal should not have awarded any compensation for loss of
care and guidance as well as for loss of love and affection of parents.
(b) The deceased was 43 years old and the multiplier selected was for
the age group of 41 to 45 years and therefore, on account of future
prospect, there should have been addition of 25% of the income,
Page No.# 6/7
not 40%.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for both sides.
10. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court that was rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In paragraph 59 of
the said judgment, it is mentioned therein that if the age of the
deceased is between 40 to 50 years, then the addition of future prospect
would be 25% only and if the age of the deceased is below 40 years,
then the addition of future income would be 40%.
11. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was 43 years old and
added the multiplier of 14 for the age group of 41 to 45 years.
12. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly held the
age of the deceased to be 43 years and therefore correctly applied the
multiplier 14.
13. The calculation of compensation shows that the Tribunal has
correctly added the future prospect at 25% only.
14. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), the
respondents, on account of non-pecuniary damages, are entitled to get
a total of Rs.70,000/- only.
15. Therefore, the calculation would be like this.
(i) Monthly income of deceased = Rs.6,000/-
(ii) 25% of the above income added as future prospect
Page No.# 7/7
(Rs.6000/- + Rs.1,500/-) = Rs.7,500/-
(iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of deceased
(Rs.7,500/- -- Rs.1,875/-) = Rs.5,625/-
(iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied to the
above multiplicand (Rs.5,625/- X 12 X 14) = Rs.9,45,000/-
None-pecuniary damages (general damages)
Rs.70,000/-
16. Thus, the respondents are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.10,15,000/-.
17. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified
accordingly. The respondents shall be entitled a total compensation of
Rs.10,15,000/- along with 7% interest per annum to be calculated from
the date of filing of the application.
18. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
