Tripura High Court
The United India Insurance Co. ... vs Sri Biswajit Debnath And Ors. on 30 June, 2021
Page 1 of 19
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. 10 of 2019
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional
Manager, Agartala Divisional Office, GRS Tower, 1st Floor, Old
R.M.S. Choumohani, P.O. - Agartala, P.S. - West Agartala, District-
West Tripura. Insurer of vehicle no. TR 01D-1567 (Truck)
-------Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.Sri Biswajit Debnath and Ors. S/O- Late Bijoy Debnath, R/O- East
Howaibari, P.O. - Howaibari, P.S.- Teliamura, District- Khowai
Tripura,
2.Sri Sumitra Debnath, W/O - Late Nepal Debnath, of East Howaibari,
P.O - Howaibari, P.S. - Teliamura, District - Khowai Tripura,
3.Sri Tapan Kr. Saha, S/O- Late Lalit Mohan Saha, of L.N. Bari Road,
Banamalipur, Agartala,P.O- Banamalipur and P.S. - East Agartala,
District - West Tripura. (Owner of the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. TR 01D-1567 Truck)
-----Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S.Chakraborty, Adv.
Date of hearing : 17.03.2021
Date of judgment : 30.06.2021
Whether fit for reporting : No.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT
[1] This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.09.2018
delivered by the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khowai in
T.S.(MAC) 09 of 2015 awarding compensation of a total sum of
MAC App.10 of 2019
₹13,06,000/- along with 9% annual interest thereon to the elder brother
and grandmother [claimant petitioners 1 to 2] of Abhijit Debnath who
died in a road traffic accident on 08.09.2014 in Teliamura rural
hospital.
[2] Factual context of the case is as follows:
On 07.09.2014 at about 6 O'clock in the evening 17 years
old Abhijit Debnath was returning home from Teliamura market on his
bi-cycle. On his way, the offending truck bearing Registration No.TR-
01-D-1567 hit his bi-cycle. As a result he received grievous injury and
on the following day he succumbed to his injuries in Teliamura rural
hospital. Since his parents predeceased him, his physically challenged
brother Biswasjit Debnath and his grandmother Sumitra Debnath being
claimants filed an application under Section 166 MV Act before the
said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum
of Rs.17,81,000/-.
[3] Owner of the offending vehicle was impleaded as
respondentNo-1 and its insurer was impleaded as respondent No.2.
Pursuant to notice issued from the Tribunal, the respondents appeared
and filed written reply. In his written reply respondent 1 admitted the
accident. But he denied the imputation of rash and negligent driving.
He claimed that at the time of accident his vehicle was duly registered
MAC App.10 of 2019
and the driver was also possessing a valid driving license. He stated
that his vehicle was also duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company
Limited [Respondent No2] and copy of the insurance policy was
submitted by him. The Insurance Company [respondent No.2] pleaded
that the claim was exorbitant and its liability was subject to production
of valid documents of the vehicle and driving license of the driver as
well as a valid insurance policy.
[4] In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
ISSUES
″(I) Whether due to rash and negligent Act and driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle bearing RegistrATIon No. TR- 01-
D-1567(Truck) the aCCident took place on 07.09.2014 AT South
Karailong on Assam-Agartala road under Teliamura Police
Station and out of that accident Abhijit Debnath, since deceased,
died ?
(II)Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation
and if so who is to pay the amount of compensation ?
(III)Any other relief/relief(s) the claimant- petitioners are entitled
to ?″
[5] In the course of trial, 03 witnesses were examined on
behalf of the original claimants and documents including the
FIR[Exbt.1], post mortem report [Exbt.10], Birth certificate of the
MAC App.10 of 2019
deceased[Exbt.4] and Death certificate of the deceased[Exbt.2] were
produced.
[6] On behalf the respondent owner of the vehicle
[Respondnet-1] respondent himself was examined as OPW-1 and 12
documents including the registration certificate of his vehicle[Exbt.5],
copy of the insurance policy[Exbt.6], Tax invoice[Exbt.7], driving
license [Exbt.8] valid pollution certificate of the vehicle[Exbt.9],
fitness certificate[Exbt.10] and permit of the vehicle[Exbt.11] etc.
were introduced.
[7] The Insurance Company [respondent No.2] also examined
their investigator namely Shri Santi Brata Sharma as OPW-2 and
introduced 3 documents which were exhibited on their side as Exbit.13,
Exbt.14 and Exbt.15.
[8] On appreciation of evidence and the facts and
circumstances of the case, Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/[email protected] Rs.400/- per day x 30 days. Since the
deceased was 15 years old at the time of his death, multiplier of 18 was
applied to the case as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 loss of dependency was
assessed at (Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 18) = Rs.25,92,000/-. 50% of the said
MAC App.10 of 2019
amount was deducted towards his personal and living expenses since
the deceased was unmarried and after such deduction, loss of
dependency came to be (₹25,92,000/- ÷ 2) = ₹12,96,000/-. With the
said amount ₹10,000/- was added as funeral expenses and the total
amount of ₹13,06,000/- was awarded as compensation and it was
ordered that the said amount would carry 9% annual interest from the
date of the order and the insurance company was directed to deposit the
amount at the Tribunal within 60 days.
[9] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award
insurance company [Respondent-2] being appellant has filed this
appeal mainly on the following grounds:
(i)The Tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income
of the deceased at ₹12,000/-. Evidently, the deceased was a minor and
student of class VIII at the time of accident and he had no income at all.
The Tribunal should have assessed the annual income of the deceased
at ₹15,000/- as per the second schedule, MV Act and the total amount
of compensation should not have exceeded ₹3,50,000/- in any case.
(ii)Tribunal committed illegality in treating his elder
brother and the grandmother as his dependent family members because
deceased was a minor and in no case the claimants could be his
dependents.
MAC App.10 of 2019
[10] Mr.P.Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
argued that in the present case the deceased was a non earning minor
member and as such the Tribunal in determining compensation should
have been guided by the table in the second schedule of the MV Act
which has prescribed a fixed notional income and multiplier for
children of different age groups. In support of his contention
Mr.Gautam, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in Lata Wada and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported
in (2001) 8 SCC 197. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision
of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 on the same issue. According to
Mr.Gautam, learned counsel, the second schedule applies in the case
because the deceased was a child. According to Mr.Gautam, learned
Advocate, even when compensation is payable under Section 166 MV
Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the second
schedule is not permissible. It is contended by learned counsel that the
Tribunal committed error in determining the compensation for the
death of the minor by deviating from the formula provided under the
second schedule. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court to re-
assess the compensation in terms of the second schedule.
MAC App.10 of 2019
[11] Ms. S.Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant respondents on the other hand argues that the Tribunal has
determined a fair and reasonable compensation on the basis of the
established principles and there is no reason to interfere with the said
judgment and award of the Tribunal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges
the Court for dismissal of the appeal.
[12] The only point which arises for consideration of this court
is whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable or does it call for reduction as claimed by the appellant.
[13] As noted, claimants stated that the deceased was 15 years
old at the time of his death. As per his birth certificate [Exbt.4], he was
born on 26.08.1999 and as per the death certificate [Exbt.2], he died on
07.09.2014. Therefore, he crossed 15 years of age on the date of his
death. His elder brother Biswajit Debnath who is one of the claimants
has stated at the trial as PW-1 that his deceased brother was a mechanic
and he was earning ₹15,000/- per month before his death and he was
maintaining the family consisting of the PW and their grandmother. It
was stated by the PW that he was physically unfit. Therefore, he was a
dependent of his deceased brother.
MAC App.10 of 2019
In his cross examination it was suggested to him on behalf
the appellant insurance company that his brother had no income at all.
The PW denied the suggestion.
[14] PW-2, Sanjay Debnath, who witnessed the accident, stated
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending truck. He also stated that before his death the deceased was a
mechanic and used to earn ₹15,000/- per month. His physically
challenged elder brother and old and ailing grandmother were his
dependents.
In his cross examination, it was suggested to the PW on
behalf of the appellant insurance company that the deceased did not
have a monthly income of ₹15,000/- before his death.
[15] PW-3, Dulal Debnath gave similar evidence who stated
that the deceased was a mechanic before his death and his monthly
income was around ₹15,000/-. He was also cross examined by the
counsel representing the insurance company as well as by the counsel
representing the owner. It was suggested to the PW that the deceased
did not have a monthly income of ₹15,000/- before his death which was
denied by the PW.
MAC App.10 of 2019
[16] As OPW-1 the owner of the offending vehicle had taken
all the documents of his vehicle into evidence which were marked as
Exbts.1 to 12. Except identifying the documents produced by him, the
OPW said nothing in his examination in chief.
[17] Sri Santi Brata Sharma, investigator engaged by the
appellant insurance company testified as OPW-2. In his examination-
in- chief, the OPW stated that he had conducted the investigation into
the said occurrence on behalf of the insurance company and his
investigation revealed that the deceased was a student of Class VIII in
Tuisindraibari H/S School at Teliamura and he was 15 years old at the
time of his death. However, his investigation report revealed that
claimant Biswajit Debnath, brother of the deceased was a dependent of
him. Though the investigator met the grandmother [Respondent-2] he
disputed the dependency of the said grandmother on the deceased.
In his cross examination by the counsel of the claimant
respondent, he stated that he had no idea about investigation, inquiry
and trial. He also stated that he did not have any knowledge about who
were the legal representatives of the deceased or who were his actual
dependents. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that
grandmother of the deceased was a dependent of the deceased.
MAC App.10 of 2019
[18] On appreciation of such evidence, the Tribunal assessed
the monthly income of the deceased at ₹12,000/- @ ₹400/- per day.
Since the deceased was 15 years old, the Tribunal applied the multiplier
of 18 as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma(Smt.) and
Others vs. DTC and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
worked out the loss of dependency at (₹12,000/-x12x18) =
₹25,92,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the amount
was deducted as his personal and living expenses as per the judgment
of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma(supra) and the actual loss of
dependency was worked out at (₹25,92,000/- ÷ 2) = ₹12,96,000/-. With
the said amount Tribunal added 10,000/- as funeral expenses and
awarded compensation of a total sum of Rs.13,06,000/- with 9% annual
interest thereon from the date of order till the payment.
[19] Structured formula in the second schedule to the MV Act
is applicable to a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act.
The present claim petition was filed by the claimant respondents at the
Tribunal under Section 166 MV Act for granting a reasonable and fair
compensation. The Tribunal framed issue whether the accident
occurred due to rash driving of the vehicle and on appreciation of
evidence came to the conclusion that the accident actually occurred due
MAC App.10 of 2019
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and decided the
issue accordingly.
[20] Section 163A of the MV Act is based on the principle of
"no fault liability" and the claimants need not prove rash and negligent
driving to succeed in a claim under Section 163A of the Act. It is a
settled principle of law that just, reasonable and fair compensation
should be granted in all cases involving injuries, loss of limb or death
in vehicular accidents. Despite the amending provision in Section 163A
MV Act, amendment in the provision commensurate to the changes in
the cost of living has not taken place. In Puttamma vs. K.L.Narayana
Reddy reported in (2013) 15 SCC 45, the Apex Court held that the
second schedule has become redundant, irrational and unworkable due
to changed scenario including the present cost of living and current rate
of inflation and increased life expectancy. Observation of the Apex
Court in the said judgment is as under:
"40. By Act 54 of 1994, Section 163-A - Special Provisions
as to payment of compensation on structured formula
basis, has been inserted with effect from 14-11-1994.
Section 163-A envisages that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act or in any other law or instrument
having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle
shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent
disablement due to accident arising out the use of motor
vehicle, compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule,
to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. The
purpose of Section 163-A and the Second Schedule is to
avoid long-drawn litigation and delay in payment of
compensation to the victims or his heirs who are in dire
need of relief. Sub-section(2) of Section 163-A envisages
MAC App.10 of 2019
that the claimant shall not be required to plead or
establish that the death or permanent disablement in
respect of which the claim has been made was due to any
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-
section (3) of Section 163-A envisages that the Central
Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by
notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time
amend the Second Schedule....................................................
43. Several anomalies exit in the Second Schedule and the
said anomalies were first noticed as early as in the year
1996 in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra wherein this Court
held that the Table in Second Schedule suffers from
several defects and cannot be used as a ready reckoner
and observed as follows: (SCC p.371, para18)
"18. We must at once point out that the calculation
of compensation and the amount worked out in the
Schedule suffer from several defects. For example,
in Item 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is
shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown
to be Rs 3000. The total should be Rs 3000 × 15=Rs
45,000 but the same is worked out at Rs 60,000.
Similarly, in the second item the multiplier is 16 and
the annual income is Rs 9000; the total should have
been Rs 1,44,000 but is shown to be Rs 1,71,000. To
put it briefly, the Table abounds in such mistakes.
Neither the tribunals nor the courts can go by the
ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide.
Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all
cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased.
For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the
age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of
the parents would also be relevant in the choice of
the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to
actual calculations only and not in respect of other
items. What we propose to emphasise is that the
multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor.
This is the improvement over the earlier position
that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought
it necessary to state the correct legal position as
courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier as
in the present case where the Tribunal used the
multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34,
thereby showing lack of awareness of the
background of the multiplier system in Davies
case."
44. Again this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Hansrajbhai V.Kodala held that there is a specific
provision under Section 163-A(3) of the Act, 1988 which
requires that the Central Government keeping in view the
cost of living by notification in Official Gazette from time
MAC App.10 of 2019
to time amend the Second Schedule and held: (SCC p.195
para 26)
"26. In addition, the learned counsel also pointed
out that in case of a fatal accident and disability in a
non-fatal accident, it has been provided that
notional income for the claimant who had no income
prior to the accident shall be Rs 15,000 per annum
and still, however the Second Schedule provides
table of income ranging from Rs 3000 to Rs 40,000
and the break-up also does not provide any
calculation for Rs 15,000, as the columns in the
Schedule inter alia provide for compensation for a
person having income of Rs 12,000, and thereafter
straight away at Rs 18,000. The learned counsel also
submitted that despite the specific provision in
Section 163-A(3) that the Central Government may,
keeping in view the cost of living, by notification in
the Official Gazette from time to time amend the
Schedule, nothing has been done so far. Further, by
order dated 30-8-2000, this Court again noticed a
number of anomalies in the Second Schedule and,
therefore, thought it fit to have assistance of either
the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor
General of India. When the matter was called out on
15-12-2000, Mr Altaf Ahmed, ASG, stated before
the Court that the order passed by this Court on 30-
8-2000 has already engaged serious attention of the
Ministry of Surface Transport Department and the
Government was considering the matter for
bringing necessary correction in the Second
Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, we
again sought assistance of the Additional Solicitor
General on the interpretation of Section 163-A and
also to verify whether there are corrections in the
Second Schedule. Learned Additional Solicitor
General stated that amendment might take some
time. In this view of the matter, we think it would be
appropriate if the Central Government takes
necessary action as early as possible under Section
163-A(3)."
45. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni this Court having regard to
inflation and fall in rate of bank interest observed that it is
desirable that the Central Government bestows serious
consideration to amend the Second Schedule and made
following observation: (SCC p.408, para 72)
"72. Section 163-A was introduced in the year 1994.
The executive authority of the Central Government
has the requisite jurisdiction to amend the Second
Schedule from time to time. Having regard to the
inflation and fall in the rate of bank interest, it is
MAC App.10 of 2019
desirable that the Central Government bestows
serious consideration to this aspect of the matter."
46. Discrepancies/errors in the multiplier scale given in
the Second Schedule were also noticed in the case of Sarla
Verma. Paras 35 and 36 of the judgment in Sarla Verma
are quoted hereunder:
"35. There are however discrepancies/errors in the
multiplier scale given in the Second Schedule table.
It prescribes a lesser compensation for cases where a
higher multiplier of 18 is applicable and a larger
compensation with reference to cases where a lesser
multiplier of 15, 16, or 17 is applicable. From the
quantum of compensation specified in the table, it is
possible to infer that a clerical error has crept in the
Schedule and the 'multiplier' figures got wrongly
typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 and 5
instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5.
36. Another noticeable incongruity is, having
prescribed the notional minimum income of non-
earning persons as Rs 15,000 per annum, the table
prescribes the compensation payable even in cases
where the annual income ranges between Rs 3000
and Rs 12,000. This leads to an anomalous position
in regard to applications under Section 163-A of the
MV Act, as the compensation will be higher in cases
where the deceased was idle and not having any
income, than in cases where the deceased was
honestly earning an income ranging between Rs
3000 and Rs 12,000 per annum. Be that as it may."
47. In spite of assurance by the Central Government to the
Court, no change is brought in the Second Schedule
keeping in view the cost of living."
[21] Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that in view
of the age of the deceased and in view of the fact that deceased was a
non earning member, the Tribunal should have calculated the
compensation on the basis of the structured formula provided under
Section 163A MV Act. Such contention is not tenable because the
deceased completed 15 years of age on 26.09.2014[Exbt.2]. On the date
of accident he was more than 15 years and from the table provided in
MAC App.10 of 2019
the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it would appear that children of the
age group between 15 to 20 years are not excluded from the table.
Rather multiplier of 18 has been provided for this age group for
calculation of compensation. Moreover, the claim petition which was
filed at the Tribunal was filed under Section 166 MV Act and not under
Section 163A of the Act. on "no fault liability". Tribunal after holding
that the rash and negligent driving was proved against the offending
vehicle, calculated the amount of compensation applying the multiplier
provided in Sarla Verma (supra). In the peculiar circumstances of this
case, though the deceased was only a month older than 15 years, he had
to start earning because of compelling circumstances. It is true that the
investigator [OPW-2] engaged by the appellant during his enquiry
found the name of the deceased in the admission register of the school
in which he once studied. But it does not prove that the deceased was
pursuing his education at the time of accident. Rather, the PWs have
consistently testified that he was a mechanic by occupation which was
not denied by the appellant in the cross examination of the PWs.
Undisputedly, the deceased lost both of his parents at a very tender age.
His paternal grandmother, claimant respondent-2, Smt. Sunitra Debnath
was evidently a dependent member of his family. Sumitra Debnath is
now older than 70 years and as such evidently she does not have any
income at all. It is also undisputed that the elder brother of the deceased
MAC App.10 of 2019
[Claimant Respondent-1] was physically unfit to pursue any
occupation. In their evidence the PWs supported this fact and in cross-
examination of the PWs the appellant did not dispute this fact.
Obviously, therefore, the deceased could not but earn for the family to
maintain himself, his grandmother and his elder brother who was
unable to work and earn. I find no reason to disbelieve the claimants'
story that the deceased was an earning member of the family as a
mechanic and as a result of the unfortunate death of the deceased in the
said road traffic accident the said dependants of the deceased were
deprived of his companion and support for which they need a fair and
just compensation and the focus for determination of compensation
would be the contribution of the deceased towards his dependents had
he been alive.
[22] Facts of the cases relied upon by learned counsel of the
appellant being completely distinguishable, the appellant cannot derive
any benefit from those decisions.
[23] As stated above the Tribunal determined his daily income
at Rs.400/- as a mechanic and worked out his monthly income at
Rs.12,000/- by multiplying his daily income by 30 days. Thereafter, the
Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 as per the table in Sarla
Verma(supra) and worked out the loss of dependency at (Rs.12,000/- x
MAC App.10 of 2019
12 x 18) = ₹25,92000/-. The said amount was divided by 2 because the
deceased was a bachelor and 50% of his income was required to be
deducted for his personal and living expenses as per the judgment in
Sarla Verma(supra). Actual loss of dependency was thus worked out
at ₹12,96,000/-(₹25,92,000 ÷ 2). The Tribunal added an amount of
₹10,000/- as funeral expenses and total amount of compensation of
₹13,06,000/- along with 9% interest thereon was awarded to the
claimant petitioners. Since it is proved that the deceased was an earning
member of the family, a just and fair compensation has to be given to
his dependants by applying the uniform settled principles for
determination of such compensation. Keeping in mind such principles
laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court, the compensation is
reassessed and quantified as follows.
[24] It is true that no document regarding the income of the
deceased was produced at the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants.
Therefore, it needs some guess work to determine his income. Tribunal
has determined his daily income at ₹400/- which is on the higher side.
Moreover, it was unlikely that he would get work 30 days in a month.
As a mechanic, he could have easily earned ₹300/- per day. Supposing
that he would get work for at least 24 days in a month, his monthly
income would come at (₹300 x 24) =₹7,200/-. By multiplying the said
MAC App.10 of 2019
amount with the multiplier of 18 as per the table in Sarla Verma
(supra) the amount would come to (Rs.7,200 x 12 x18)=Rs.15,55,200/-.
As the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the said amount would be
deducted as his personal and living expenses and after such deduction
the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.15,55,200 x 100 x 50%)
=Rs.7,77,600/-. Since the deceased was a self employed and below 40
years of age, an addition of 40% to be made to this amount as per the
judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and after such addition
the total amount would come to (Rs.7,77,600+Rs.3,11,000/-)=
Rs.10,88,600/-. With this amount Rs.15,000/- will be added for funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- will be added for loss of estate under the non
conventional heads and thus the total amount of compensation would
come to Rs.10,88,600/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.11,18,600/-. Compensation
payable to the claimants is, therefore, quantified as follows:
Sl.No. Head Amount of compensation
01 For loss of dependency Rs.10,88,600/-
02 For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
03 For loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.11,18,600/-
The said amount will carry 6% annual interest from the
date of presentation of the application under Section 166 MV Act at the
MAC App.10 of 2019
Tribunal till the date of payment. The appellant insurance company will
deposit the said amount at the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from
today. Claimant respondent no.2, Smt. Sumitra Debnath, grandmother
of the deceased will get 40% of the amount which will be invested in a
fixed deposit in her name accruing monthly interest and the said
monthly interest shall be deposited in her savings bank account. Rest
60% of the amount shall be released in favour of claimant respondent
No.1 namely Sri Biswajit Debnath who is the elder brother of the
deceased.
[25] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Send down the LC records.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma, P.A
MAC App.10 of 2019
