The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Biswa Laxmi Debbarma
2022 Latest Caselaw 459 Tri

                                 Page - 1 of 18



                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                         MAC App. No. 29/2021

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Represented by the Divisional Manager, Agartala Division Office,
H.G.B. Road, (Near Sarkar Nursing Home), Agartala, West Tripura.
                                                       ............... Appellant(s).
                                     Versus

1.     Smt. Biswa Laxmi Debbarma,
Wife of late Jyotish Debbarma,

2.     Smt. Swarnalata Debbarma,
Wife of late Niranjan Debbarma,

3.   Smt. Barkha Debbarma,
Daughter of Late Jyotish Debbarma,

4.   Smt. Happy Debbarma @ Bhumi,
Daughter of Late Jyotish Debbarma,
All are the residents of village Sipaipara, Lefunga, P.O.-
Lembucherra, P.S.- Lefunga, District- West Tripura. Since the
claimant respondents No.- 3 and 4 are minor, they are being

represented by their natural guardian i.e. the mother claimant respondent No.-1.

............... Claimant-Respondent(s).

5. Smt. Soma Bhattecharjee, Wife of Sri Sujit Bhattecharjee, Vill and P.O.- Fatikcherra, Kamalghat, P.S.- Lefunga, District- West Tripura. (Owner of Vehicle bearing No.- TR-01-C-4191, TATA WINGER).

............... Respondent(s).

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bisawnath Majumder, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. B. Saha, Advocate.

Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate.

     Date of hearing             :      26th November, 2021.

     Date of Judgment & Order :         19th April, 2022.

     Whether fit for reporting   :      NO.


MAC App. No.29/2021.
                                   Page - 2 of 18



                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER

This appeal by the appellant insurance company is directed against

the common judgment and award dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in Case Nos.

TS (MAC) 21 of 2011 and TS (MAC) 28 of 2011 whereby the appellant insurance

company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

[2] The factual background of the case is as under:

Jyotish Debbarma (deceased) was going to Lembuchera market

from his house at around 3.30 pm on 23.12.2010. On the way, a speeding Tata

Winger Jeep bearing registration No.TR 01-C-4191 hit him on its way from

Agartala to Sidai. The victim was thrown off the road. As a result of the accident

he received fatal injuries in his head, chest and other vital parts of his body. He

was immediately brought to A.G.M.C and G.B.P Hospital at Agartala where he

succumbed to his injuries on the following day. The victim was 38 years old at

the time of accident and he was serving as a Panchayat Secretary under the

Government of Tripura.

[3] Having lost the only breadwinner of the family, his wife, mother

and two daughters filed an application under Section 166 M. V. Act claiming

compensation. In their petition they impleaded the owner of the offending

vehicle as respondent No.1 and the appellant-insurer as respondent No.2.

[4] Their petition was registered as TS (MAC) No.21 of 2011. During

the pendency of TS (MAC) 21 of 2011, the same claimant petitioners filed

another petition against the same respondents claiming compensation arising out

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 3 of 18

of the death of said Jyotish Debbarma in the alleged accident which was

registered as TS(MAC) 28 of 2011. Order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the

Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal stayed TS(MAC) 21 of 2011 and

proceeded to decide TS(MAC) 28 of 2011 but eventually by the impugned

judgment dated 28.07.2016 Tribunal decided both the matters together by the

common judgment which has been challenged before this Court.

[5] After the accident, wife of the deceased lodged a written FIR with

the Officer-in-charge of Lefunga police station alleging, inter allia, that her

husband was hit by the offending vehicle at about 3.45 pm on 23.12.2010 when

he was going to Lembuchera bazaar from their house. Allegedly, the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Immediately after the

accident her husband was taken to G.B.P hospital at Agartala for treatment.

[6] Based on her FIR, Lefunga P.S case No.76 of 2010 under Sections

179 and 338 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

[7] On the following day, deceased succumbed to his injuries. The post

mortem examination of the deceased was done in GBP Hospital on 25.12.2011.

The autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was coma as a result of

head injury which was caused by impact of blunt force which could be seen in

road traffic accident. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and about 30 to

36 hours in duration. After completing investigation, police submitted charge

sheet against accused Bishan Rudra Paul of Sidhai for having committed offence

punishable under Section 279 and 304 A IPC.

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 4 of 18

[8] The owner of the offending vehicle contested the case by filing

written statement. It was asserted by the owner that on the date of accident the

accused driver drove has vehicle with a valid driving licence. His vehicle was duly

registered and it had a updated fitness certificate. All taxes were duly paid and

the insurance certificate of the vehicle was also in operation. The owner claimed

that as per the insurance policy liability arising out of the accident would be

borne by the insurance company.

[9] The insurance company (respondent No.2) in its written statement

denied the accident as well as the claim of the petitioners that Jyotish Debbarma

died in the said accident. It was however, contended by the insurance company

that to substantiate their claim the claimant petitioner would have to prove that

the insurance policy was operative on the date of accident and there was no

breach of the terms of the insurance policy.

[10] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed

the following issues in the suit.

(i) Whether Jyotish Debbarma, son of Late Niranjan Debbarma died in the alleged road traffic accident which occurred on 23.12.2010 at Lembucherra due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Winger Jeep bearing registration No.TR 01 C 4191?

(ii) Whether the claimant petitioners were entitled to compensation arising out of the death of said Jyotish Debbarma and if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who would be held liable to pay the compensation?

(iii) What other relief/reliefs the parties were entitled to?

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 5 of 18

[11] In the course of trial, Smt. Biswa Laxmi Debbarma, wife of the

deceased examined herself as PW-1 and produced the certified copy of the post

mortem examination report of her late husband (Exbt.1), death certificate

(Exbt.2), salary certificate of the deceased (Exbt.3), his voter identity

card(Exbt.4), survival certificate in original (Exbt.5), certified copy of the FIR

(Exbt.6) and certified copy of the police report (Exbt.7). Other than PW-1,

mother of the deceased namely, Smt. Swarnalata Debbarma was examined as

PW.2 and one Smt. Manimala Debbarma was examined as PW.3.

[12] From the side of the respondents the owner examined herself as

OPW-1 and she produced the registration certificate of her vehicle (Exbt.A), tax

token (Exbt.B), road permit (Exbt.C), fitness certificate of the vehicle(Exbt.D)

and insurance certificate of the vehicle (Exbt.E).

[13] The insurance company contested the case by filing written

statement. But the insurance company neither examined any witness nor

produced any document.

[14] Initially, in the claim petition younger daughter of the deceased

(impleaded as respondent No. 4) was named as Bhumi Debbarma. Subsequently,

the claimants sought for amendment of their claim petition. Petition was allowed

by the Tribunal and her name was amended to be Happy Debbarma @ Bhumi.

[15] The Tribunal decided the first issue in favour of the claimants. It

was held by the Tribunal that immediately after the accident FIR was filed by the

claimant wife of the deceased and on the basis of her FIR specific case was

registered at Lefunga police station which was investigated by police. The police

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 6 of 18

investigation revealed that, the Tata Winger Jeep bearing registration No. TR01C

1419 was involved in the accident and the accident actually occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Tribunal held that even the post

mortem examination report (Exbt.1) clearly indicated that death of Jyotish

Debbarma occurred due to head injury received from a road traffic accident

which was ante mortem in nature. Even though the counsel of the insurance

company tried to impress the Tribunal that accident occurred due to contributory

negligence of the deceased, Tribunal did not accept the contention because the

evidence adduced by the claimants outweighed such contention of the insurance

company. Moreover, the insurance company could not adduce any material in

support of its claim that accident occurred due to fault of the deceased. The

Tribunal therefore, answered the issue in the affirmative and held that Jyotish

Debbarma died in the road traffic accident on 23.12.2020 as a result of rash and

negligent driving of the Tata Winger Jeep bearing registration No. TR-01C-1491.

[16] The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to decide Issue Nos.2 and 3

together. Since it was proved that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the vehicle, Tribunal held that the claimants who were the

wife, mother and two daughters of deceased Jyotish Debbarma became entitled

to compensation arising out of the death of said Jyotish Debbarma in a road

traffic accident. Having relied on the salary certificate issued by the Zonal

Development Officer, West Zone, TTAADC, Khumulwng where the deceased was

a Panchayet Secretary Tribunal held that monthly salary of the deceased was

Rs.15461/-. Even though the claimants tried to project that apart from his salary

income, the deceased used to sell vegetables in the evening to earn more. The

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 7 of 18

tribunal did not accept such plea without evidence. Since the deceased was

proved to be 41 year of age at the time of his death and he had a permanent

job, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of

National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and Others:

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 proceeded to make an addition of 30% of his

actual salary towards future prospect. But mistakenly Tribunal added Rs.7730/-

as 30% of Rs.15,461/- which should have been Rs.4638/- (30% of Rs.154561/-).

[17] Thereafter the Tribunal pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others Vrs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Another: reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 deducted

/4th of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased since the number of dependent family members of the

deceased was four. Following the schedule laid down in the case of

Sarla Verma (supra) Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 as the deceased was 41

years of age. Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium to his

wife and a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. No amount

was given under the head of loss of estate and no amount was awarded for loss

of consortium to the children and mother of the deceased. The Tribunal thus

assessed the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants at

Rs.30,32,024/-.

[18] With regard to the liability of paying compensation Tribunal held

that the accused driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence on the

date of occurrence and all other documents of the vehicle were operative.

Tribunal also held that the vehicle had also the insurance coverage on the date

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 8 of 18

of accident and under the said insurance policy (Exbt.E), respondent No.2 was

liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal also answered these

issues in the affirmative in favour of the claimants and directed the insurance

company (respondent No.2) to pay the compensation to the claimants along with

9% annual interest thereon from the date of filing of the petition till

disbursement. The relevant extract of the impugned award is as under:

"10. So, this Tribunal finds and hold that from the documents on record it is established that the involved offending Mini bus was insured with O.P No 2 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd covering the period of accident. So, O.P.No.2 cannot deny its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant petitioners. Thus, the Issue No.(ii) & (iii) are decided accordingly.

11. In the result, the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed on contest. The petitioners 1).Smti Biswa Laxmi Debbarma, W/O Late Jyotish Debbarma , 2).Smti Swarnalata Debbarma ,W/O Late Niranjan Debbarma,3). Smti Barkha Debbarma,D/O Late Jyotish Debbarma 4).Smt Happy Debbarma @ Bhumi, D/O Late Jyotish Debbarma all of Shepai Para, P.S.Lefunga , West Tripura i.e. wife, mother and minor daughters of deceased Jyotish Debbarma are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 29,32,024/(Rupees twenty nine lakh thirty two thousand twenty four) only in four equal proportion. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-which was awarded towards consortium shall be paid to the claimant petitioner No.1 exclusively. The award shall carry interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of filing the claim case i.e., from 17.01.2011 till payment.

The O.P.No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is hereby directed to make the payment of compensation together with interest as stated above, to the aforesaid legal representative of the deceased within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of judgment."

[19] Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant insurance company as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned

counsel appearing for the claimants along with Mr. Bijan Saha and Mr. D.

Debnath, learned advocates and also heard the counsel appearing for the owner

of the offending vehicle.

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 9 of 18

[20] It is contended by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the

insurance company that the Tribunal did not have a valid driving licence on the

date of accident and, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any

compensation due to the breach of the insurance policy. Counsel has relied on a

decision dated 21.01.2014 of this Court in MAC App. No. 6 of 2007 (The New

India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Shri Anukul Chandra Dey and

others) in which the appellant insurance company raised the same plea of

breach of policy. The High Court having accepted the plea allowed the appeal

and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation. Mr.

Majumder, learned counsel of the insurance company urges the court to pass

similar order as the circumstances are same in the present case.

[21] Counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently opposes the

contention of the counsel of the appellant. Counsel contends that the tribunal

has committed error in assessing the compensation. According to learned

counsel, Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of consortium to the

children and mother of the deceased. In support of his contention Mr. S.

Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in

the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and others: reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned

counsel also contends that in police investigation it was proved that the accused

driver drove the offending vehicle on the date of occurrence with a valid driving

licence. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea of the claimants that driver had

no valid licence on the date of occurrence. It has been argued by Mr. Saha,

learned counsel of the petitioner that the driver of the offending vehicle as per

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 10 of 18

the driving licence was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Counsel contends

that by an amendment carried out in the Motor Vehicles Rules in 2001, the

entries 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle' has been substituted by

'transport vehicle' and a driver who had a driving licence to drive 'transport

vehicle' as well as 'light motor vehicle' can also drive heavy goods vehicle. It is

further submitted by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that the insurance company

never raised this issue during the trial of the case before the Tribunal. They did

not even cross examine the witnesses of the claimants or lead evidence on this

issue. Police investigation revealed that the accused driver drove the offending

vehicle and he had a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence. By filing a

review petition before the Tribunal the insurance company urged the tribunal to

review the impugned award on the ground of that the driver who was shown to

be the driver of the offending vehicle did not actually drive the vehicle. In his

place someone else had driven the vehicle and, as such, the owner committed a

breach of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance company could not

be held liable to pay the compensation. By an order dated 13.04.2021 passed in

CM(Review) 02 of 2019 the Tribunal rejected the review petition and admittedly,

the order has not been challenged by the insurance company.

[22] Counsel of the claimants therefore, urges for dismissing the appeal

filed by the insurance company.

[23] Counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle contends

that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is based on sound evidence and

reasoning and it has been proved that on the date of occurrence the insurance

policy of the vehicle was operative and, as such, the owner of the offending

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 11 of 18

vehicle is not liable to pay the compensation. Counsel therefore, urges for

dismissal of the appeal.

[24] It appears from the record that the Tribunal has given a detailed

judgment after appreciation of the entire gamut of facts, evidence and law

involved in the matter. With regard to the contention of the appellant insurance

company that driver was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle, this court

is of the view that the insurance company was provided with opportunity to raise

the issue before the Tribunal. The owner of the offending vehicle was also put in

the witness box as OPW-1. The insurance company could have cross examined

him on this issue but that was not done by the appellant insurance company.

The appellant did not also lead any evidence in this regard. Moreover, the review

filed by the appellant insurance company on this ground was also dismissed by

the Tribunal and they did not challenge the said order dated 13.04.2021 passed

in CM(Review) 02 of 2019. It is not denied by the insurance company that the

driver was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. There is merit in the

contention of the counsel of the original claimants that after the amendment of

the motor vehicles rules in 2001 a driver authorized to drive a transport vehicle

can also drive a heavy goods vehicle. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Annappa Irappa Nesria alias

Nesragi and others; reported in (2008) 3 SCC 464 held as under:

"17. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles.

18. Clause (e) provides for "Transport vehicle" which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 12 of 18

"medium good vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle"

existed which have been substituted by "transport vehicle". As noticed hereinbefore, "Light Motor Vehicles" also found place therein.

19. "Light Motor Vehicle" is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read as under:

"Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Number.................... Date........ Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from...............

Badge number .........

Signature Designation of the licensing authority

Name and designation of their authority who conducted the driving test."

20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.

[25] This Court also dealt on the issue in the case of National

Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Haradhan Das and Others; reported in

(2019) 2 TLR 13 and held under:

"12. Having regard to the legal position, as emanated on the strength of the above decision, I am of the considered view, that, when an endorsement was made in a driving licence of the driver authorizing him to drive "Transport Vehicle‟, that means, the driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive "Heavy Goods Vehicle‟ as the licence to drive "Transport Vehicle‟ include "Heavy Goods Vehicle‟, even unladen weight of which exceeds 12,000 kgs., though, in the present case, the unladen weight of the vehicle is below 7,500 kgs."

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 13 of 18

[26] In view of the facts discussed hereinabove and the judgments cited

to (supra), the plea of the insurance company that the accused driver was not

authorized to drive the offending vehicle and such unauthorized driving of the

offending vehicle led to violation of the insurance policy is not acceptable.

[27] With regard to assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal,

this Court is of the view that the Tribunal could not make a correct assessment

of compensation. Therefore, the compensation is re-assessed as under:

[28] Admittedly, at the time of his death in the road traffic accident,

Jyotish Debbarma was a Panchayet Secretary posted in the office of the Zonal

Development Officer, West Zone, TTAADC, Khumulwng. His salary certificate

dated 08.04.2011 (Exbt.3) indicates that he was drawing a gross monthly salary

of Rs.15461/- at the time of his death. Since he was of the age of 41 years and

he had a permanent job, an addition of 30% of his actual salary income should

be added towards future prospect in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the Case of Pranay Sethi (supra). After such addition of 30%, annual income of

the deceased is worked out as Rs.15,461 + Rs.4,638 (30% of Rs.15,461/-) x 12

= Rs.2,41,188/-. Since the deceased was married and number of his dependant

family member was four, 1/4th of the said amount shall be deducted towards

personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 1/4th pf Rs.2.41,188/- comes to

Rs.60,297/-. After deduction of the said amount annual income of the deceased

comes to Rs.1,80,891/-. Since the deceased was aged 41 years multiplier of 14

would apply in this case as per the schedule laid down in the case of Sarla

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 14 of 18

Verma (supra). After applying multiplier 14, the amount of compensation for

loss of income comes to Rs.1,80,891 x 14 = Rs.25,32,474/-(rupees twenty five

lakhs thirty two thousands four hundred and seventy four).

[29] Apparently, the Tribunal did not award any amount for loss of

consortium to the mother and two minor children of the deceased. Counsel of

the claimants have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Satinder Kaur alias

Satwinder Kaur and others: reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410 wherein

the Apex Court held as under:

"54.********

b) Loss of Consortium

55. Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non- pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads for awarding compensation in various jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement.

56. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.,12 this Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

57. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.

58. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 15 of 18

great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their 12 (2018) 18 SCC 130. child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.

59. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

60. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.

61. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.

62. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).

63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

64. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.

65. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."

[30] In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the mother and two

children of the deceased are entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 16 of 18

Rs.40,000/- per head. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for

funeral expenses which should be raised to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has not

given any award for loss of estate. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/-

for loss of estate as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra).

[31] In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the claimants are awarded

compensation as follows:

SL.

                               Heads                             Amount
             No.
             1.  Loss of dependency                        Rs.25,32,474/-
             2.    Loss of spousal consortium              Rs.    40,000/-
             3.    Loss of parental consortium for each    Rs.    80,000/-
                   of the two children (Rs.40,000 x 2)
             4.    Filial consortium for the mother        Rs.    40,000/-
             5.    Funeral expenses                        Rs.    15,000/-
             6.    Loss of estate                          Rs.    15,000/-
                                                Total :    Rs.27,22,474/-




[32]         The Tribunal has awarded interest at rate of 9% per annum on the

amount of compensation. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate having relied

on the judgment of the Apex Court in Parminder Singh Vrs. New India

Assurance Company Limited and others; reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217

has contended that the Apex Court approved annual interest at 9% granted by

the High Court on the compensation awarded to the claimant who suffered

100% functional disability arising out of an accident which took place in the year

2010. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel contended that in the instant case also

the accident in which the Jyotish Debbarma died took place in the year 2010.

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 17 of 18

After the accident no immediate help was extended by the insurance company to

the family of the deceased. Counsel contended before the court that in the given

facts and circumstances of the case, 9% annual interest may not be considered

as an exorbitant rate. There is no serious agitation from the other side on this

issue. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the

view that the interest awarded by the Tribunal calls for no interference.

[33] In view of the above, appellant insurance company is directed to

deposit the whole amount of compensation of a sum of Rs.27,22,474/-(rupees

twenty seven lakhs twenty two thousands four hundred seventy four) along with

9% annual interest thereon from the date of filing till disbursement. Amount

already paid including the statutory deposit made by the appellant

shall be adjusted. The same shall be deposited with the Registry within 6(six)

weeks from today.

[34] The four petitioners will be entitled to the compensation aforesaid

in equal share. The whole share of the minor daughter namely, Smt. Happy @

Bhumi Debbarma will be invested in a term deposit in any nationalized bank for a

term of five years. Monthly interest generated from such investment shall be

transferred to the savings bank account of her mother namely, Smt. Biswa Laxmi

Debbarma to meet the expenses of her education. 75% of the share of each of

the other three petitioners shall also be invested in term deposit for a period of

five years in any nationalized bank and the monthly income generated from such

deposit shall be released in favour of them by transferring the same to their

individual bank account. 25% of their compensation shall be released in favour

of those petitioners by transferring their share to their individual bank account.

MAC App. No.29/2021.

Page - 18 of 18

[35] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Send down the L.C record.

JUDGE

Dipankar

MAC App. No.29/2021.