Tripura High Court
High Court Of Tripura vs Smt. Gurikka Chakma on 30 June, 2021
Page - 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App No. 39/2019
The Branch Manager,
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kailashahar Branch,
Represented by 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-02-A-2919, Auto Rickshaw)
............... Appellant.
Versus
1. Smt. Gurikka Chakma,
Wife of Sri Santosh Chakma,
Daughter of Late Swargadhan Chakma,
R/o- Baghaichara, P.O & P.S -Pecharthal,
District-Unakoti Tripura.
2. Sri Amal Kumar Chakma,
Son of Late Swargadhan Chakma,
R/o- Baghaichara, P.O & P.S -Pecharthal,
District-Unakoti Tripura.
3. Sri Sumal Deb,
Son of Late Sri krishna Deb of Ugalchara,
P.O & P.S -Pecharthal, District - Unakoti Tripura.
(Owner of the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No.TR-02-A-2919, Auto Rickshaw).
4. Sri Niranjan Debnath,
Son of Sri Gopal Debnath of Khirodecherra, Pecharthal,
P.O & P.S -Pecharthal, District - Unakoti Tripura.
(Driver of the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No.TR-02-A-2919, Auto Rickshaw).
............... Respondent(s).
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Majumder, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 23rd April, 2021.
Date of Judgment & Order : 30th June, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 2 of 7
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] This appeal under Section 173(1) has been filed by the
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kailashahar
branch against the judgment and award dated 10.12.2018 delivered in
case No.TS(MAC) 15 of 2016 whereby and whereunder total sum of
Rs.4,46,000/- along with 9% interest thereon from the date of
presentation of the petition till payment was awarded to the claimants
(respondents No.1 and 2 herein) on account of death of the Swargadhan
Chakma in a road traffic accident at Kailashahar on 02.11.2013.
[2] Factual background of the case, is as under:
The deceased was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing
registration No. TR-02-A-2919 from Bhubanpur to Kinacharanpara on
02.11.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. When the speeding vehicle reached near
Bhubanpur Sr. Basic School, it capsized on the road and said Swargadhan
Chakma sustained severe injuries from the said occurrence. Local people
had immediately taken him to Machmara Primary Hospital from where he
was referred to Kailashahar district hospital. On the same day at about
11.30 p.m he succumbed to his injuries. His son Amal Kumar Chakma
lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-charge of Pacharthal police
station alleging, inter alia, that his father died from the accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
[3] Based on his FIR, Pacharthal P.S Case No. 48 of 2013 under
Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC was registered and after investigation of
the case police submitted charge sheet against accused driver, Niranjan
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 3 of 7
Debnath (respondent No.3) for having committed offence punishable
under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC.
[4] Smt. Gurikka Chakma, married daughter of the deceased and
his son Amal Kumar Chakma being claimants filed the claim petition at
the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.11,15,000/- along
with 9% interest on the said amount.
[5] Notice was issued to the respondents including the insurance
company. On behalf of the insurance company (respondent no.3 at the
Tribunal) it was pleaded that statement of the claimants with regard to
age, avocation and income of the deceased were not true. The insurance
company however, pleaded that payment of compensation would be
subject to presentation of the original insurance policy, valid driving
license of the accused driver and valid documents of the vehicle.
[6] In the course of the trial of the case, the claimants adduced
the evidence of said Amal Kumar Chakma as PW-1 and that of the
claimant daughter of the deceased as PW-2. Besides adducing their oral
evidence, the claimants also submitted several documents including the
FIR and injury report of the deceased. No evidence was adduced on
behalf of the respondents.
[7] On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and
deceased Swargadhan Chakma who was travelling in the said vehicle
received serious injuries from the said accident and succumbed to his
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 4 of 7
injuries at hospital. The tribunal further held that the offending vehicle
was insured with respondent No.3 and the insurance policy (Exbt.C-1)
was operative on the date of accident. Observing that deceased was 61
years old at the time of occurrence and he was a day labourer by
occupation, the Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 7 worked out the
loss of dependency at Rs.3,36,000/-. For loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
was given to his daughter and son at the rate of 40,000/- per head and
for loss of estate and for funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- was given and the
total compensation was quantified by the Tribunal as under:
Sl.
Head Amounts
No.
1. For loss of dependency Rs.3,36,000/-
2. For loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
3. For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total : Rs.4,46,000/-
9% annual interest was allowed on the said amount from the
date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment.
[8] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the United
India Insurance Company Ltd., Kailashahar branch filed this appeal
challenging the said award mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
exorbitant.
(ii) None of the claimants were dependant family members
of the deceased because claimant daughter was married and
the claimant son was also having his own income as a day
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 5 of 7
labourers. Therefore, tribunal should have rejected their
claim.
(iii) The tribunal did not follow the uniform procedure and
guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in various judicial
pronouncements and on this ground the award of the Tribunal
is liable to be set aside.
(iv) The tribunal erroneously granted consortium to the
married daughter and adult son of the deceased which is not
also tenable in the eye of law.
[9] In the course of his argument, Mr. P. Gautam, learned
counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently argued that
none of the claimants were dependant family members of the deceased
and, as such, they were not entitled to any compensation at all. Further
submission of Mr. Gautam, learned counsel was that the claimants who
were married daughter and son of the deceased were not entitled to any
compensation for loss of consortium. It was also contended on behalf of
the insurance company that the claimants could not produce any
evidence in support of the income of the deceased and, as such, the
income of the deceased was absolutely a guess work of the tribunal based
on no evidence and, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was
unjust and unfair.
[10] Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the
Tribunal by a detailed and reasoned judgment awarded a just and fair
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 6 of 7
compensation to the claimants which does not warrant any interference in
appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the appeal.
[11] Since there is no objection to the fact that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and father of
the claimant respondents died in the said accident and the vehicle was
insured with the appellant and the insurance policy (Exbt.C-1) was
operative on the date of accident, obviously the claimant respondents 1
and 2 are entitled to compensation owing to the death of their father in
the said road traffic accident. The only question which arises for
determination by this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and fair.
[12] Both of the claimants in their evidence have stated that their
father was a day labourer who used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month.
Relying on their evidence Tribunal guessed that the deceased used to
earn Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month which would be
Rs.72,000/- per year. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 7 for
determination of loss of dependency as per the table laid down in the
case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others Vrs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another: reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the
amount after such multiplication stood at Rs.72,000 x 7 = 5,04,000/-.
One third of the said amount was deducted for personal and living
expenses of the deceased since the number of dependent family
members of the deceased was 2(two) and after such deduction the
amount came to be Rs.5,04,000 - 1,68,000 = 3,36,000/-. With this
amount Tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- for loss of consortium for two
MAC App. No.39/2019.
Page - 7 of 7
claimants and also awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and thus total compensation of
Rs.4,46,000/- was awarded with 9% interest thereon.
[13] In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view
that the tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation
payable to the claimants which does not call for any interference in
appeal. However, in so far as the rate of interest on the awarded amount
is concerned, it should be reduced to 7% from 9% annual interest. The
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal will therefore, carry,
7% annual interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition till
payment. The appellant shall deposit the said amount of compensation
with the Registry of the High Court within 6(six) weeks after deducting
the amount, already paid/deposited. The Registry will, in turn, release the
amount of compensation in equal share to the claimants.
[14] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Send down the L.C. record along with a copy of this
judgment. Copy of the judgment be also given to Secretary to HCLSC for
compliance. Fees of the legal aid counsel appointed for the claimant
respondents shall be paid by High Court Legal Services Committee at the
rate as admissible.
JUDGE
Dipankar
MAC App. No.39/2019.
