National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Mampi Goswami (Banerjee)
2024 Latest Caselaw 709 Tri

Tripura High Court

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Mampi Goswami (Banerjee) on 7 May, 2024

               HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                     AGARTALA
                 MAC APP No.56 of 2023

National Insurance Company Limited.
Represented by Its Divisional Manager (In Charge),
Agartala Division, 42, Akhaura Road,
P.O: H.P.O. Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, Pin: 799001
(Insurer of the motor bike No. TR-01-X-8678/Super
Splendor)

                                            .......... Appellant

                     Versus
1.   Smt. Mampi Goswami (Banerjee),
     W/O: Late Pallab Banerjee.

                              ......Claimant/Respondent-1.

(Wife of the deceased)

2. Sri Pranay Banerjee.

S/O Late Pallab Banerjee.

......Claimant/Respondent No-2.

(Minor son of the deceased represented by his mother at Sl.no. 1 above)

3. Smt. Minati Banerjee, W/o: Lt. Probodh Chandra Banerjee.

.....Claimant/Respondent No-3.

(Mother of the deceased) All the 3 above are residents of Village- Madhuman, Kathaltali, P.O: Madhuban, P.S: Amtali, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799003.

4. Sri Parimal Das S/o: Rudreswar Das R/O: Gajaria, P.O: S.D. Mission, P.S: A.D. Nagar, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799003 .........(Owner of the offending motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678/ Super Splendor).

5. Sri Sumit Das, S/O: Sri Parimal Das, R/O: Gajaria, P.O: S.D. Mission, P.S: A.D. Nagar, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799003.

.........(Driver of the Offending motor bike No:TR-01-X-8678/ Super Splendor, as shown in the claim petition).

6. Prasanjit Das, S/O: Sri Tapan Das of Gajaria, P.S: A.D. Nagar, West Tripura, Pin:799003.

.........(Driver of the Offending motor bike No:TR-01-X-8678/ Super Splendor, as shown in A.D. Nagar P.S. Charge Sheet No:41/2021) Along with CO(FA) No.22 of 2023

1. Smt. Mampi Goswami (Banerjee), W/O: Late Pallab Banerjee.

2. Sri Pranay Banerjee.

S/O Late Pallab Banerjee.

3. Smt. Minati Banerjee, W/o: Lt. Probodh Chandra Banerjee.

(Petitioner-claimant respondent No.2 being minor son of the deceased, represented by his mother i.e. petitioner- Claimant-respondent No.1.) All are resident of Vill- Madhuban, Kathaltali, P.O. Madhuban, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura, Pin 799003.

.....Appellants.

Versus

1. Sri Parimal Das S/o: Rudreswar Das Resident of Gajaria, P.O. S.D. Mission, P.S: A.D. Nagar, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799003 (Owner of the offending motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678 Super Splendor).

2. Sri Sumit Das, S/O: Sri Parimal Das, Resident of Gajaria, P.O. S.D. Mission, P.S: A.D. Nagar, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799003.

(Driver of the offending motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678 Super Splendor, as shown in the claim petition).

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager (In Charge), Agartala Division, 42 Akhaura Road, P.O. Agartala, P.S: West Agartala, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799001.

(Insurer of the motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678 Super Splendor)

..........Respondents.

In MAC APP 56 of 2023:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv, Mr. E. Darlong, Adv, Mr. N. Debnath, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Adv, Mr. A.K. Pal, Adv, Mr. T.K. Bhattacharjee, Adv. In CO(FA) No.22 of 2023:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Paul, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Adv.

Date of Hearing           :      25.04.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order :             07.05.2024
Whether fit for
Reporting                 :      YES

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                      Judgment & Order

           The     National      Insurance       Company        being   the

appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of

M.V. Act challenging the award dated 06.04.2023 passed by

Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court

No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case No.

T.S.(MAC) 199 of 2021. On the other side, the claimant-

petitioners of the original claim petition have also preferred a

cross-appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for

enhancement of the award dated 06.04.2023 passed by

Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court

No.5, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with the aforesaid

case which was numbered as CO(FA) No.22 of 2023. Since,

both the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment, so,

by this judgment, both the appeals are taken up for disposal.

02. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Kar

Bhowmik assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. E. Darlong and Mr.

N. Debnath for the appellant Insurance Company. Heard

Learned Counsel, Mr. A. K. Pal appearing on behalf of the

respondent-claimant Nos.1 to 3 and also heard Learned

Counsel, Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, representing O.P. respondent

Nos. 4 and 5, being the owner and rider/driver of the

offending bike bearing No.TR-01-X-8678 in connection with

case No. MAC App 56 of 2023 and also heard the same

parties in the connected cross-appeal.

03. Before conclusion of the appeal, let us project the

subject matter of the claim petition filed before the Claims

Tribunal. The respondent-claimants filed one application

under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of

Rs.64,53,000/- due to the death of the deceased, Pallab

Banerjee, who succumbed to his death by a road traffic

accident on 16.04.2021 at about 13.45 hours at Drop Gate,

Agartala under A.D. Nagar P.S. The case of the respondent-

claimants before the Tribunal was that on the alleged day,

the deceased Pallab Banerjee came out of his house with his

auto-rickshaw and went to Drop Gate to a garage of one

Guddu on 16.04.2021 at about 13.45 hours for the purpose

of repairing which is situated near S.T. Pauls School and

keeping the auto-rickshaw on the road side, infront of the

said garage, the deceased wanted to restart the auto, that

time suddenly one Sumit Das, respondent rider/driver, son of

Parimal Das of Gajaria came with another person behind

back seat of motor bike bearing No.TR-01-X-8678 rashly

dashed the deceased victim who fell down on the hard road

and sustained injuries and the local people and the pillion

riders shifted the deceased in A.G.M.C and GBP Hospital

where said Pallab Banerjee succumbed to his injury on

17.04.2021. Post-mortem examination was done over the

dead body of the deceased and according to the claimant-

petitioners, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the driver of the motor bike Sri Sumit Das. It was

further submitted that the local witnesses, who were present

to the P.O. also stated that the bike was actually driven by

Sri Sumit Das, S/o of Parimal Das and in its back seat one

Prasanta Das was taken his seat and to save the son of

Parimal Das(owner of the bike) the name of one Prasanta

was given as a driver, but said Prasanta Das did not ply the

bike on that particular time of accident. But the Investigation

Officer deliberately and intentionally concealed the name of

actual driver Sumit Das and accordingly, laid charge sheet in

the name of Prasanta Das against A.D. Nagar P.S. Case No.

2021/ADN/028 dated 17.04.2021 under Section 279/304A of

IPC. It was further submitted that the deceased Pallab

Banerjee was a young, energetic, fit and sound healthy

person of 41 years age and he was the only bread earner of

his family, who were entirely depending upon the income of

the deceased and the deceased used to earn money by

driving his auto rickshaw and also as rubber tapper and in

total he used to earn Rs.40,000/-/42,000/- per month.

Hence, the respondent claimant-petitioners No.1 to 3 filed

the claim petition. The claim was contested by the owner and

the rider of the bike and they submitted that the claimant-

petitioners are to prove their case and the accident was

occurred not for any rash and negligent driving of the rider

of the bike and it was further submitted that on that relevant

point of time, the offending bike had all the valid documents

including the driving licence of the rider of the bike. So, the

owner and driver/rider by the W.S. prayed for dismissal of

the claim-petition. The appellant, Insurance Company as OP

No.3 contested the case by filing W.S. denying the claim of

the claimants and submitted that the accident occurred not

for rash and negligent driving of the bike bearing No.TR-01-

X-8678 and it was also submitted that the claimants are to

prove their case by producing all the relevant documents and

Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation

unless valid driving licence and other relevant documents are

produced and proved. The Insurance Company also

submitted that any breach of policy could disentitle the

Insurance Company to pay any compensation. So, the

Insurance Company also prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

04. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned

Tribunal below framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether deceased Pallab Banerjee died due to road traffic accident due to rash and

negligent driving of bike TR-01-X-8678 on 16.04.2021 at about 1.15 pm at Drop Gate, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation?

                        (iv) What should         be    the    amount   of
                        compensation?

(v) Who is liable to pay compensation?

05. To substantiate the issues, the respondent-

claimant-petitioners have adduced oral/documentary

evidence on record and the owner of the bike, Parimal Das

was tendered for his examination by O.P.W1 and relied upon

some documentary evidence which were marked as exhibits:

APPENDIX Claimant Witness:-

PW.1- Smt Mampi Goswami (Banerjee). PW.2- Sri Sanjit Shil.

PW.3- Sri Swapan Kumar Goswami.

PW.4- Sri Nobel Dasgupta.

Claimant' Exhibits:-

Ext.1:- Certified copy of printed FIR. Ext.2:- Certified copy of FIR.

Ext.3:- Certified copy of computerized FIR. Ext.4:- Certified copy of postmortem report. Ext.5:- Certified copy of police statement. Ext.6:- Certified copy of charge sheet. Ext.7:- Certified copy of MVI report. Ext.8:- Death certificate.

Ext.9:- Survival certificate.

Ext.10:- Rubber Board Certificate. Ext.11:- Trade licence dated 03.11.2017. Ext.12:- Income certificate.

Ext.13:- Cash memo.

Ext.14:- Postmortem certificate. Ext.15:- Mark sheet.

Ext.16:- Admit card.

Opposite party's Witness:-

OPW.1- Sri Parimal Das.

Exhibits by Opposite party No.1:- Ext.A- Photocopy of Insurance Certificate. Ext.B-Photocopy of Registration Certificate. Ext.C- Photocopy of Tax token.

Ext.D- Photocopy of Driving licence.

06. The Learned Tribunal after taking evidence and

also after hearing of arguments allowed the claim petition by

judgment dated 06.04.2023. The operative portion of the

order of the Tribunal runs as follows:

"The OP No.3, The National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the awarded compensation of Rs.22,65,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakh sixty five thousand) only within 30 days from today with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from date of filing of the claim application i.e., from 10.11.2021 to till realization of the full.

Distribution of Compensation The claimant No.1 being widow is entitled to get 50% of the compensation and claimant No.2 and 3 are equally entitled to the rest compensation.

Protection Awarded Compensation As claimant No.2 is minor the full amount of him is to be fixed deposited for the period till he attain 21 years or for five years whichever is later.

Sixty percent (60%) of the amount of compensation of claimant No.1 and 3 are to be fixed deposited for five years and the rest amount are to be released in their favour in their bank account.

In case of necessity, the Tribunal can be approached for withdrawal of fixed deposited amount. On maturity of the fixed deposits the Banker shall credit the amounts to the sole SB Accounts of claimants without any further order from the Tribunal.

Furnish a copy of the award to both sides.

The case stands disposed of on contest.

Make necessary entry in the TR and CIS."

07. Challenging the award the appellant Insurance

Company has preferred this appeal. At the time of hearing,

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, assisted by

Learned Counsel Mr. E. Darlong and Mr. N. Debnath for the

appellant Insurance Company submitted that before the

Tribunal, the actual driver who was charge-sheeted in the

connected A.D. Nagar P.S. case was not made as party, so,

the claim petition was not maintainable. He further

submitted that said Prasenjit Das alias Prasanta Das had no

valid driving licence. Now only for gaining compensation, the

claimant-petitioners have excluded his name in the claim

petition rather impleaded the name of one Sumit Das as the

rider of the offending bike and made one Parimal Das, being

the father of said Subir Das as owner of the said offending

bike. As such, since the original owner has violated the terms

and conditions of the policy of the Insurance, so, the

Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation

but the Learned Tribunal below did not consider the same

and urged for allowing this appeal by setting aside the award

in this respect. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted

that Learned Tribunal below determined the amount of

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

But in this regard, no cogent documentary evidence on

record is produced and proved by the respondent-claimant-

petitioners before the Tribunal and as such in pursuance of

the judgment of Sarala Verma reported in (2009) 6 SCC

121 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Company vs Pranay Shetty and Ors., reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680, Learned Senior Counsel further

submitted that the determination of calculation by the

Tribunal was not proper and lawful in the eye of law and

prayed for modifying the award. Learned Senior Counsel also

submitted that at the time of calculation of compensation,

additional Rs. 15,000/- was awarded but in this regard no

explanation was made by the Tribunal. So, in summing up,

Learned Senior Counsel urged for allowing the appeal,

setting aside the award/judgment of the Learned Tribunal.

08. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. H. K.

Bhowmik, representing the respondent O.P. Nos.4 and 5

submitted that the submission of Learned Senior Counsel

cannot be accepted at this stage, because before the

Learned Tribunal at the time of filing of W.S. nothing was

submitted by the appellant Insurance Company in this regard

that the person who is charge-sheeted was not made as

party. Even the Insurance Company did not adduce any

oral/documentary evidence on record. Rather Learned

Counsel submitted that in the written statement submitted

by the Insurance Company in Para No.4, it was specifically

mentioned that one Sumit Das was the driver/rider of the

bike and at this stage, there is no scope on the part of the

appellant Insurance Company to deviate from the said

statement. Learned Counsel further submitted that even in

the claim petition the respondent-claimant-petitioners

arrayed Sumit Das as the rider of the offending motor bike

and the witnesses of the claimant-petitioners including the

eye witnesses specifically whispered the name of the Sumit

Das as the rider of the offending bike and to discredit the

said evidence, there was no contrary evidence on record

from the appellant Insurance Company. Furthermore, before

the High Court also the prayer for making Prasanta Das was

rejected by this High Court by order dated 15.02.2024 in

connection with IA No.3 of 2023 arising out of MAC App

No.56 of 2023. Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that the

Learned Tribunal below rightly and reasonably awarded the

claim petition and there is no merit in the appeal and

submitted that for determination of compensation, Civil

Court is not binding by the order of the Criminal Court rather

the findings of MAC Tribunal would prevail over the findings

of Criminal Court and referred some citations which would be

discussed later on.

09. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. A. K.

Paul, representing the respondent-claimant-petitioners

submitted that the respondent-claimant-petitioners have

been able to prove the claim petition before the Learned

Tribunal both by oral/documentary evidence on record and

also submitted that the deceased had monthly income more

than Rs.40,000/- but the Tribunal without any basis assessed

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per

month, which was insufficient and not satisfactory and urged

for enhancing the award/compensation by allowing the

cross-appeal and dismissing the appeal preferred by the

appellant Insurance Company.

10. I have heard elaborate arguments of Learned

Counsels of the interested parties and gone through the

record of the Learned Tribunal below. It appears that the

Learned Tribunal at the time of determination of

compensation assessed the monthly of the deceased at

Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering all aspects and relying

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Sarala Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Another, determined the multiplier as 14 and thereafter,

in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and Others reported AIR (2017) SC 5157 allowed

25% of the amount to be added as future prospect and

thereafter, deducted 1/3 amount towards personal expenses

of the deceased. Thus, determined the loss of income at

Rs.21,00,000/-(Twenty one lakhs) only. Thereafter Learned

Tribunal below awarded Rs.1,20,000/-(One lakh twenty

thousand) only as consortium, Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen

thousand) only as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral

expenses and further added Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen

thousand) only as loss of conventional head. Thus,

determined the total amount of compensation as

Rs.22,65,000/- (Twenty two lakhs sixty five thousand) only.

From the record of the Learned Tribunal below and also from

the oral/documentary evidence on record, it appears that the

appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal could not

raise any circumstance to disbelieve that said Sumit Das was

not the rider/driver of the offending motor bike on the

alleged day of accident, rather in the WS filed by the

Insurance Company, they specifically stated that the

rider/driver of the offending motor bike was Sumit Das.

11. Furthermore, they made similar plea before this

Court and this Court in I.A. No.3 of 2023 dated 15.02.2024

discarded that plea of the Insurance Company. So, at this

stage, there is no scope to accept the submission made by

Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant Insurance

Company.

12. To counter his submission, Learned Counsel, Mr.

H. K. Bhowmik relied upon one judgment of this High Court

in connection with MAC App No.07 of 2012 dated

14.10.2016 in para No.9, 10 and 11 observed as under:

"9. The question as to how far the decision of a criminal case or the police report can influence the decision of a civil case was discussed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahila Dhanwanti and others v. Kulwan and others, AIR 1994 MP 44, and it was held therein:

10. Coming to the other contention that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation, it has also no merit. True, the F.I.R. (Ex. D/2-C) and the statement of the Investigating Officer gives a version which support the case of the Insurance Company, but even assuming that the F.I.R. is a public document, but it is the rule of law that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only for the purposes of corroboration or contradiction of the maker only. The maker having not been examined by either side, the statement of A. S. Yadav carries no weight as he only investigated the occurrence. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. His testimony is of hearsay evidence, therefore, the conclusions which he drew after investigation cannot be taken into consideration unless supported by proper material, It is well settled proposition of law that evidence recorded in criminal Court and the findings arrived at thereon should not be used in claim cases.

Such evidence, for the purposes of claim cases is inadmissible. (See Shabbir Ahmad v. M.P.S.R.T.C., Bhopal, AIR 1984 MP 173)."

10. In R.P. Gautam v. R.N.M. Singh and another, AIR 2008 MP 68, the Madhya Pradesh High Court lucidly summed up the proposition of law in the following manner:

13. It is settled proposition of law that every civil case is decided on it's own facts and evidence without influencing the papers and decision of the criminal case. In such premises registration of the offence and police investigation is not a condition precedent for awarding the claim. Besides this due to one reason or another if the first information report of vehicular accident is not lodged with the police or the same was given at later stage and police neither registered the offence nor investigated the same, it does not mean that right of the victim for compensation who suffered the vehicular accident is washed away.

The victim remains entitled for compensation on proving the facts and circumstances regarding such accident and factum of injuries sustained by him, he could not be deprived from such right, provided by the Motor Vehicles Act, although such compensation may be awarded only on proving all relevant facts with all probabilities."

11. Motor accident claim case is in the nature of a civil suit and certainly not a criminal case. Therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred in law in relying on the contents of the ejahar and the Police investigation report to disbelieve and discard the case of the claimant. The claimant, on the contrary, is entitled to prove her case on the basis of the evidence adduced by her, which was corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of PW- 2, who personally saw the accident resulting in the death of the deceased, in the course of trial. On my above findings, I have no hesitation in holding that the deceased was killed in the vehicular accident on 2-4-2004 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No. 1. Resultantly, the insurer, who admittedly insured the vehicle in question at the time of the accident, is vicariously liable to satisfy the award."

13. From the principle of the said citation, it is crystal

clear that although the police charge-sheeted the name of

one Prasenjit Das, son of Tapan Das of Gajaria as the

driver/rider of the offending bike on the day of accident but

the Tribunal was not bound by the said decision in absence

of valid, cogent and documentary evidence on record.

Rather, I find force on the submission of Learned Counsel,

representing the O.P. owner and rider/driver of the offending

motor bike. More so, the appellant Insurance Company to

substantiate their contention could not raise any doubt to

disbelieve the evidence of the claimant-petitioners and their

evidence.

14. Now, regarding the actual monthly income of the

deceased, the respondent-claimant-petitioners could not

adduce any documentary evidence on record. They relied

upon Exhibit-10 i.e. the certificate of Rubber Board, from

which it appears that the deceased had undergo training for

a period w.e.f. 01.12.2005 to 09.12.2005 as rubber tapper.

The claimant-petitioner also relied upon Exhibit-12 which

was issued by the Secretary and President of Tripura Auto

Ricksha Shramik Sangha, wherein it was stated that the

deceased used to earn Rs.40,000/-/42,000/- per month but

that certificate was not issued by any Authority of the

Government to place any reliance, even the Issuing Authority

was also not tendered for examination by the respondent-

claimant-petitioners. But it is on record that he was an auto

driver and also he used to do some earning from rubber

tapping business but in this regard, no specific evidence on

record could be adduced by the respondent-claimant-

petitioners. So, in my considered view, Learned Tribunal

below rightly determined the amount of monthly income of

the deceased as Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand)only

per month. So, I find no scope to interfere with the judgment

of the Learned Tribunal below in this regard. It was the

admitted position that there was no dispute on record in

respect of the death of the deceased and also in respect of

age of the deceased as 41 years on the day of accident or

occurrence of offence.

15. Learned Tribunal below admittedly could not give

any specific finding as to how he determined the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. It is on

record that the deceased was a driver side by side he was

also a rubber tapper. So, considering the position and status

of the deceased, it can be safely concluded that the Tribunal

after considering all the factors in absence of cogent

evidence on record rightly determined the monthly income of

the deceased Rs.15,000/- per month. Because a auto-driver

easily can earn Rs.500/- per day. More so, he used to earn

some money as rubber tapper. So, even for 25 days if the

deceased used to ply his vehicle, i.e. auto-rickshaw for 25

days in that case also his earning comes to Rs.12,000/- and

the rest amount he could easily earn from rubber tapper.

16. In course of argument, Learned Senior Counsel,

Mr. Bhowmik also submitted that the Learned Tribunal below

at the time of determination of calculation awarded 15,000/-

(Rupees fifteen thousand only) more without any basis for

which no specific head was mentioned. In this regard, I

would like to refer herein below the judgment of our Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.

in Para No.52 of the said judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court

observed as under:

"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 54. It has granted Rs 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 54 refers to Santosh Devi: Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2012) 6 SCC 421, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact- centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

17. From the aforesaid principle of law, it appears

that the Learned Tribunal below in delivering the judgment,

determined the compensation under conventional heads i.e.

the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium,

Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-)

=Rs.1,50,000/- x 10% of the said amount= Rs.15,000/-.

18. So, in my considered view, Learned Tribunal

rightly determined the said amount as the accident took

place on 16.04.2021. So, after prolong hearing of the

Learned Counsels of the contesting parties, it appears that

there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant

Insurance Company and at the same time the appellant-

claimant-petitioner in the connected cross-appeal also could

not place any materials before this Court to enhance the

amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus,

both the appeals filed by the appellant Insurance Company

and the respondent-claimant-petitioners fails being devoid of

merit.

19. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant

Insurance Company fails and accordingly, it is hereby

dismissed on contest and also the cross-appeal filed by the

respondent-claimant-petitioners stands rejected being devoid

of merit. The judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal

dated 06.04.2023 is hereby affirmed and accordingly, it is

upheld.

20. From the record, it appears that the Insurance

Company has already deposited 50% of the amount before

the Registry of this High Court which has been disbursed in

pursuance of the order passed by this High Court on

15.02.2024 in connection with I.A. No.2 of 2023 arising out

of MAC App No.56 of 2023. So, the appellant Insurance

Company be asked to deposit the balance amount with

interest to the Registry of the High Court as per award given

by Learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the

date of passing this judgment/order. The disbursal of amount

to the claimant-petitioners would be made as per direction

given by the Learned Tribunal below vide judgment and

award dated 06.04.2023.

21. A copy of this judgment/order be furnished free of

cost to Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance

Company and to the owner/rider of the offending motor bike

as well as to the Learned Counsel, representing the

respondent-claimant-petitioners.

22. With this observation, these appeals stands

disposed of on contest. A copy of this judgment/order be

kept in the connected CO(FA) No.22 of 2023.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

JUDGE

SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.05.09 17:11:08 +05'30' Purnita