Tripura High Court
The General Manager vs Smt. Mana Bibi on 19 February, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP. No.48/2019
The General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
of E/8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura , Jaypur, Rajasthan-302022
(Insurer of Bus Vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-07-1215).
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Mana Bibi, W/O. Samsu Miah of Garurband, P.S-Meghalaya.
2. Smt. Aleya Khatun @ Begam,W/O. Late Manir Hossain.
3. Master Sajib Hossain, S/O. Late Manir Hossain
(Both are residents of Vill-Matinagar, PS- Sonamura, District - Sepahijala
Tripura.
4. Smt. Ayesha Aktar, W/O. Late Manir Hossain, D/O. Md. Kabir Ahamed
Bhuiya, Vill-Indiranagar, P.S. Melaghar, District-Sepahijala Tripura.
5. Sri Uttam Kumar Majumder, S/O. Late Gopal Majumder of Village - Raj
Nagar, P.S - R.K. Pur, District - Gomati Tripura. (Owner of the vehicle
bearing Registration No. TR-03-1231, Bus).
6. Sri Khokan Banik, S/O. Late Abani Banik of Vill - Amtali, Adharsha
Para,P.S Amtali, District-West Tripura (Driver of vehicle bearing No. TR-
03-1231 (Bus).
7. Sri Abdul Ajij Bhuiya, S/O. Kabir Ahamed Bhuiya of vill -Indiranagar,
P.S - Melaghar, District -West Tripura (Owner of Motor Bike bearing No.
TR01-L-TC-7192).
8. The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 44/2
Central Road (Near Sarkar Nursing Home) (Insurer Motor Bike bearing No.
TR01-L-TC-7192).
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Pal, Advocate,
Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Date of hearing and judgment : 19th February, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge an
award dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sonamura, West Tripura in T.S. (MAC) No.52 of 2012.
2. Brief facts are as under:
On 08.09.2012 at about 8-30 a.m. one Manir Hossain travelling
on his motorcycle met with an accident caused by a bus insured by the
appellant-insurance company. He was aged about 25 years and was survived
by his mother, two wives and a minor son. He was running a stationery store
in the market place. The claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle
involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident was
caused by the negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The Tribunal
believed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- at the relevant time,
granted 50% rise for future income, deducted 1/3rd for his personal
expenditure and applied a multiplier of 18 as prescribed by the Supreme
Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vrs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, arrived at loss of
dependency benefit of Rs.21,60,000/-. To this, the Tribunal awarded a
further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards
pain and suffering of the mother and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium in
favour of the two widows. The Tribunal thereby came to a total
compensation of Rs.23,35,000/- of which Rs.21,85,000/- would be shared
equally by the claimants. The rest of the amounts would be claimant
specific.
3. This award the insurance company has challenged on quantum.
No questions about the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the
award or the negligence of the driver of the bus insured by the insurance
company in causing the accident have been raised. I have, therefore, focused
only on the calculation of the compensation. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, I do find that the Tribunal has committed a few errors in
awarding compensation under different heads, nevertheless the errors
committed are on both sides and eventually even out and which would not
call for any interference with the compensation awarded. To begin with,
awarding Rs.50,000/- to the mother towards pain and suffering is not
recognized under the law. Awarding a total of Rs.1,00,000/- to two widows
for loss of consortium, is also not as per the trend set by the Supreme Court
in case of National Insurance Company Limited vrs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and thereafter clarified in case of
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and Ors. reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1106. By virtue of these
judgments now it appears that the loss of consortium would be Rs.40,000/-,
however, each claimant in case of a close relatives such as wife, children or
parents.
4. With respect to the major portion of the compensation, the
evidence on record shows that PW-1, one of the widows of the deceased,
had deposed that her husband was engaged in a business of stationery. He
had a shop near Melagarh Motor Stand from where he would sell various
articles including consumable goods, gift items, grocery etc. She also
produced a registration obtained by her husband under Tripura Shops and
Establishments Act for the purpose of running the said business. Thus,
clearly the deceased was a young man engaged in running a business in a
market place. Assessing his income at Rs.10,000/-, therefore, cannot be
stated to be on the higher side. The claimants were not expected to produce
the balance sheets and accounts of the business to prove the precise income.
5. Having assessed the correct income, the Tribunal, however,
committed an error in granting 50% rise for future which as correctly
pointed out by the counsel for the insurance company should have been 40%
as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). If
the Tribunal thus committed an error in favour of the claimants, also
simultaneously committed an error against the claimants by deducting 1/3 rd
of the monthly earning towards the personal expenditure of the deceased.
Since there are four claimants, as per the decision of Supreme Court in case
of Sarla Verma (supra) deduction for personal expenditure ought to have
been 1/4th and not 1/3rd. If the basic income of Rs.10,000/- per month is
increased by 40% for future rise and prospective income of Rs.14,000/- per
month is reduced by 1/4th for the personal expenditure of the deceased,
monthly dependency benefit for the family would come to Rs.10,500/-
instead of Rs.10,000/- computed by the Tribunal. Eventually thus there
would be no major modifications to be made in the final award passed by
the Claims Tribunal.
6. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
7. Records and proceedings be transmitted to the concerned
Claims Tribunal.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
