Tripura High Court
Sbi General Insurance Company ... vs Sri Laxman Debbarma on 19 December, 2022
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC.APP. No.48/2022
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Laxmi Darshan Building,
Ulubari, GS Road, Guwahati-781007. (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration
No.TR-01X-1775,Magic)
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. Sri Laxman Debbarma, Son of Baishak Debbarma.
2. Smti Basana Debbarma, Wife of Sri Laxman Debbarma.
Both residents of village- Krishna Madhu para, PS-Mandai, District-West
Tripura.
...... Claimant-Respondent(s)
3. Sri Nani Gopal Das, Son of Late Atul Ch. Das, Resident of village-
Badharghat near Kalimata Sangha, P.O. & PS-Amtali, District-West Tripura
(Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01X-1775 Magic).
4. Smti Radharani Debbarma, Wife of Sri Santi Debbarma, Resident of
Ramkrishna Para, PS-Lefunga, District-West Tripura (Owner of vehicle
bearing registration No.TR-01X-6286, Honda Motor Cycle).
5. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co, Ltd., Netaji
Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PS-West Agartala, (Insurer of vehicle
bearing registration No. TR-01X-6286, Honda Motor Cycle).
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Roy, Advocate,
Mr. K. Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Date of hearing and judgment : 19th December, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the
award dated 21-02-2022 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 18 of
2016 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs.25,29,200/- to the claimant
petitioners with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realization thereof.
2. The claimant petitioners filed the claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal for compensation due to death of Manab Debbarma. In this
claim petition, it was alleged that on 25.08.2015 at about 3-30 p.m. while Sri
Manab Debbarma (now deceased) was proceeding towards Banikya
Chowmuhani from Circuit House by riding a motorcycle bearing registration
No.TR-01-X-6286 and reached at Durga Chowdhury Para, at that time one
TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-X-1775 came with high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and by overtaking a school bus dashed
against the said motorcycle resulting which the deceased received grievous
injuries along with other multiple bleeding injuries. Immediately thereafter,
the deceased was shifted to GBP Hospital where the attending doctor after
examination declared him as dead. In this connection, a specific case vide
Bodhjungnagar PS Case No.33 of 2015 under sections 279/338/304A of IPC
was also registered. The claimant petitioners, therefore, approached the
Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.46,70,000/- due to
the death of deceased. The Claims Tribunal framed issues and after
considering all aspects of the matter awarded a compensation of
Rs.25,29,200/- in favour of the claimants with 9% interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the award dated 21.02.2022,
the appellant-Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal for setting
aside the impugned award. Hence, this case.
3. Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel
appearing for the claimant petitioners (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) as well
as Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, owner
of the motorcycle.
4. Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company, contends that according to the claim of the claimant
petitioners, the victim who was a 16 years old bachelor, used to earn
Rs.12,000/- per month as a mason by profession. But in support of their
claim with regard to income of the deceased, they have not adduced any
documents and the learned Tribunal without appreciating any proper
documents came to a finding that the income of the deceased can be held to
be Rs.12,000/- which is on the higher side and required to be decreased.
Counsel also contends that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one
third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas in case of
unmarried bachelor 50% is to be deducted for the personal expenses. He
further contends that the interest of 9% given on the awarded compensation
is also exorbitant which needs to be decreased. He, therefore, prays to reduce
the amount of compensation by setting aside the impugned award dated
21.02.2022.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents-claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contending that
learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and prays for
dismissal of the instant appeal.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both
the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Claims
Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- simply relying
on a judgment of this Court without basing on any documentary evidence.
So, the income needs to be reduced and in my opinion, it would be just and
fair to hold the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- considering the fact
that the deceased was an unmarried bachelor and no documentary proof was
submitted in support of his income. It is also apparent that deduction of one
third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is also erroneous
and as per settled law, in case of an unmarried bachelor 50% is to be
deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. Insofar as the interest of
9% is considered, in my considered view, this should be reduced to 7.5% per
annum on the amount of compensation. In that view of the matter, I think
that it will be appropriate to hold the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
per month, deducting 50% amount for the personal expenses of the deceased
and applying 7.5% interest on the awarded compensation and accordingly,
proceed to reassess the appropriate compensation afresh in the light of
reduced income as follows:
(i) Income of the deceased per month :-Rs.10,000/- only.
(ii) 40% of the above income to be added as future prospect and by
applying the same, now the modified income would come to Rs.14,000/-.
(iii) 50% of the above income is to be deducted for the personal and living
expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency comes to Rs.(14,000-
7,000)=Rs.7,000/-.
(iv) After applying the multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and
others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121, the compensation works out to Rs.(7,000 x 12 x 18)=
Rs.15,12,000/-.
6. In addition thereto, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the
claimants are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- as
funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No.1 and 2, i.e. in total
Rs.80,000/- as loss of Filial.
Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.(15,12,000 +
15,000 + 15,000 + 80,000)=Rs.16,22,000/-.
7. Accordingly, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified and
the compensation is reduced from Rs.25,29,200/- to Rs.16,22,000/-. On the
amount of compensation so awarded, the claimants shall also be entitled to
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
payment/ deposit of the awarded amount. The rest of the directions with
regard to liability and apportionment of compensation passed by the learned
Tribunal will remain the same. In view of above, the appeal of the insurance
company is allowed and disposed of to the extent as indicated above.
8. Send down the lower court records forthwith.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Pulak
