THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Dated : 20th October, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC App. No.05 of 2023
0
Appellant : The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
versus
Respondents : Indra Chettri and Others
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Pema Ongchu Bhutia, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. K. B. Chettri, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Bhusan Nepal, Advocate for the Respondents No.5 and 6.
Ms. Rachana Rai, Advocate for the Respondent No.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The only challenge in this Appeal, filed by the
Appellant/Insurance Company is to the amount of ₹ 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh) only, granted as costs of litigation to the
Respondents No.1 and 2 by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, and an allegedly higher rate of interest
@ 10%, on the sum awarded as compensation, in MACT Case
No.19 of 2021 (Shri Indra Chettri and Others vs. M/s Kailash Roller
Flour Mills (P) Ltd and Others), dated 20-06-2023.
2. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the
deceased Subhas Chandra Chettri, aged about 32 years, at the
time of the road accident, which took place on 20-07-2021, at
around 08.30 a.m, at 10th Mile, Tarkhola, along the National
Highway-10. The deceased was travelling from Piplay to Gangtok, MAC App. No.05 of 2023 2
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indra Chettri and Others
on his motorcycle, when the truck bearing registration no.SK-01-D-
2175 driven by the Respondent No.6, driver of the Respondent
No.5, came at high speed and crushed the motorcyclist to his
death.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the grant of
litigation expenses to the Respondents No.1 and 2 which are on the
higher side. Relying on the Judgments of this Court being Branch
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bishnu Maya Mukhia and
Others1 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
vs. Dhan Bdr. Chhetri and Others2, it is urged that the ligation costs
be reduced to ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, as
granted in the two matters cited hereinabove. That, the rate of
interest imposed on the total Award also be reduced to 9% instead
of 10%. That, this Court had in the matters cited supra granted
interest @ 9% instead of the 10% imposed by the Learned
Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 submits
that the Respondents have no serious objections to the prayers put
forth by the Appellant.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.5 and 6 and
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 endorse the submissions
advanced by Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4.
6. Having heard the submissions in extenso, I am of the
considered opinion that in view of the consistent stand of this Court
with regard to the costs of litigation being assessed at ₹ 25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand) only, the litigation costs computed
1 SLR (2020) SIKKIM 138 : MANU/SI/0009/2020 2 SLR (2020) SIKKIM 180 : 2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 21 MAC App. No.05 of 2023 3
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indra Chettri and Others
in the instant matter at ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, be
reduced to ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only.
(i) So far as the rate of interest at 10% on the total Award
is concerned, relevant reference is made to the decision in Abati
Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and
Another 3 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as extracted
hereinbelow;
"18. ....................... The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ............................"
Bearing in mind the above observation, I see no reason to
reduce the rate of interest from 10% per annum to 9% per annum
on the total amount of the Award considering the facts and
circumstances of this matter.
3 (2003) 3 SCC 148 MAC App. No.05 of 2023 4
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indra Chettri and Others
7. Consequently, in light of the above discussions, I find
that the following compensation will serve as "just compensation"
which stands calculated as follows;
Annual income of the deceased (Rs.37,423/- x 12) ₹ 4,49,076.00
Add 50% of Rs.4,49,076/- as Future Prospects (+) ₹ 2,24,538.00 [in terms of the Judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others : (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] ₹ 6,73,614.00
Less 50% of Rs.6,73,614/- (-) ₹ 3,36,807.00 [Deducted from the said amount as expenses that the deceased would have incurred towards himself had he been alive]
Net yearly income ₹ 3,36,807.00
Multiplier to be adopted „16‟ (Rs.3,36,807/- x 16) ₹ 53,88,912.00 [The age of the deceased at the time of death was „32‟ and the relevant multiplier as per Judgment of of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 is „16‟]
Add Funeral Expenses (+) ₹ 15,000.00 [in terms of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra)]
Add Loss of Estate (+) ₹ 15,000.00 [in terms of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra)]
Add Costs of Litigation (+) ₹ 25,000.00
Add Loss of Filial Consortium (₹ 40,000/- x 2) (+) ₹ 80,000.00 [payable to the parents of the deceased, i.e., Respondents No.1 and 2, in terms of the Judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and Others : (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] Total = ₹ 55,23,912.00 (Rupees fifty five lakhs, twenty three thousand, nine hundred and twelve) only.
8. The Claimants-Respondents No.1 and 2 shall be
entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum on the above amount
with effect from the date of filing of the Claim Petition before the
Learned Claims Tribunal, i.e., 22-10-2021, until its full realisation.
9. The Appellant/Insurance Company, is directed to pay
the awarded amount to the Claimants-Respondents No.1 and 2
within one month from today, failing which it shall pay simple
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition, till full realisation. Amounts, if any, already paid by the
Appellant/Insurance Company to the Claimants-Respondents No.1
and 2, shall be duly deducted from the awarded amount. MAC App. No.05 of 2023 5
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indra Chettri and Others
10. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Claims
Tribunal for information.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 20-10-2023
Approved for reporting : Yes ds/sdl
