Tripura High Court

Smt. Rakhi Sarkar vs Shri. Ashim Singh on 19 February, 2021

                                  Page - 1 of 6




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                          MAC APP. No.11/2020
1. Smt. Rakhi Sarkar
   W/o. Late Haripada Sarkar.
2. Smt. Parulbala Sarkar
   W/o. Late Madan Sarkar.
3. Smt. Pinki Sarkar,
   D/o. Late Haripada Sarkar.
4. Smt. Payel Sarkar
   D/o.Late Haripada Sarkar,
(The Claimant Appellant Nos.3 and 4 being minor represented by their
natural guardian mother i.e. the Claimant Appellant No.1). All are
residents of Badharghat, P.S. Amtali, District - West Tripura.
                                                  ............... Appellant(s).
                                      Vs.
1. Shri. Ashim Singh S/o. Rajeswar Singh,
   resident of Village - Subhash Palli (North), Badharghat,
   P.S. A. D. Nagar, District - West Tripura, (Owner of Vehicle No. TR-
   01-AB-0795, Bolero).
2. The Divisional Manager,
   The National Insurance Company Limited, 42, Akhowra Road,
   Agartala, P.S. - West Agartala, District - West Tripura, (Insurer of
   Vehicle No. TR-01-AB-0795, Bolero).
                                                    ............... Respondent(s).

                    _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
      For Appellant(s)                 : Mr. P S Roy, Advocate.
      For Respondent(s)                :    None.
      Date of hearing & judgment : 19th February, 2021.
      Whether fit for reporting        : No.
                                 Page - 2 of 6




                      J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking

enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, under its award dated 2nd August, 2019

passed in Title Suit (MAC) 105/2017.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

Appellants are original claimants. On 29th April 2017, one

Haripada Sarkar met with a vehicular accident causing his death. His

widow, aged mother and two minor daughters filed the said claim petition

claiming compensation from driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle

involved. According to the claimants, deceased was a mason, aged about

45 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. The

Tribunal believed that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence

of the driver of the vehicle which was duly insured. Regarding

compensation, the Tribunal believed that the income of the deceased has to

be Rs.6,000/- per month on the ground that there was no evidence to

suggest that he was a skilled labourer. The Tribunal, therefore, applied the

standard of earning of unskilled labourer. The Tribunal thereafter granted

25% rise for future income applying the ratio of the decision in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others Page - 3 of 6

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and deducted one fourth for the personal

expenditure of the deceased looking to the number of dependence as

provided by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The

Tribunal by this process arrived at a figure of Rs.9,45,000/- towards loss of

dependency benefits. To this, Tribunal added Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium, Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses to

come to the grand total of Rs.10,15,000/-.

[3] Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed

a serious error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-

though it showed that he was a skilled worker. He also pointed out that the

Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of love and affection

and has also awarded a combined compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the

head of loss of consortium.

[4] Since the only point at issue in this appeal is the correct

computation of compensation, I may refer to the evidence on record in this

respect only. The widow of the deceased was examined as PW.1 who had

stated that her husband was a mason and was earning Rs.10,000/- every

month. In the cross-examination, this witness, the opponents i.e. the owner

and the insurance company did not challenge her assertion that he was a Page - 4 of 6

mason. In fact, to a question by the advocate of the owner she clarified that

her husband was a carpenter. Both the opponents had merely questioned

the witness about the earning of the deceased, but not his occupation. One

must, therefore, proceed on the basis that deceased was a mason i.e. a

skilled worker at the time of his death. The Tribunal's assessment that as

an unskilled labourer he can be expected to earn not more than Rs.6,000/-

per month is, therefore, erroneous.

[5] The Tribunal has recorded in its award the going rates for daily

wages for skilled and unskilled labourers which at the relevant time were

prescribed as Rs.306/- for highly skilled labourer and Rs.268/- per day for

skilled labourer. Going by such rough figures, the income of the deceased

can be assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of accident. 25% rise

for future income would bring his prospective income as Rs.11,250/- per

month. One-forth thereof or Rs.2,812/- will be deducted for the personal

expenditure of the deceased leaving a net of Rs.8,438/- rounded off to

Rs.8,450/- per month, or Rs.1,01,400/- per annum by way of loss of

dependency benefits. Multiplier of 14 needs to be applied looking to the

age of the deceased. Compensation towards loss of dependency benefit

would, therefore, work out to Rs.14,19,600/-.

Page - 5 of 6

[6] The Supreme Court in case of case of United India Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors., reported

in 2020 SCC Online 410 has clarified two aspects concerning motor

accident claim compensation. Firstly, it is held that consortium of

Rs.40,000/- as provided by the Supreme Court in case of Pranay

Sethi(supra) would be available to individual claimants such as spouse of

the deceased, children or parents etc. It has also been clarified that

thereafter there will be no separate compensation for loss of love and

affection. Considering four claimants who are widow, aged mother and

young daughters, each one will get Rs.40,000/- by way of loss of

consortium. This would be added by Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses.

[7] Total compensation payable to the claimants would, therefore, be

as under :

             Loss of dependency benefit                       :    Rs.14,19,600/-
             Loss of consortium
             @ Rs.40,000/- for four
             claimants.                                       :    Rs. 1,60,000/-
             Loss of estate                                   :    Rs. 15,000/-
             Funeral expenses                                  : Rs. 15,000/-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rs.16,09,600/-.

Page - 6 of 6

[8] The claimants thus receive additional compensation of

Rs.1,90,000/- which shall be shared equally by all claimants. Additional

compensation shall be deposited by the insurance company before the

Claims Tribunal with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of

claim petition till actual deposit. Out of the amount that may be deposited,

70% would be invested in any nationalized Bank for a period of 5(five)

years. The claimants would receive period interest on such fixed deposit.

Remaining 30% would be disbursed among the claimants. At the end of

the period of 5 years the invested amount shall also be released.