Smti. Nasufa Khatun And 4 Others vs Sri Sanjoy Sarkar And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 487 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smti. Nasufa Khatun And 4 Others vs Sri Sanjoy Sarkar And 4 Others on 14 August, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                     Page 1 of 5




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
                            MAC. App. No.85 of 2025

Smti. Nasufa Khatun and 4 Others
                                                            ..... Appellants

                                  -V E R S U S-
Sri Sanjoy Sarkar and 4 Others

                                                            .....Respondents

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate.

Mr. G. Das, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)             :      None.
Whether fit for reporting     :      NO

               Judgment and order dated 14th August, 2025
                      JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
             Heard.

[2]          The present application has been filed under Section-173 of the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in connection with T.S. (MAC) 39 of 2021 for enhancement of the award of compensation.

[3] The facts in brief are that on 24.11.2020, Kashem Chowdhury, aged about 35, died in a road accident while riding as a pillion passenger when a rashly driven Bolero vehicle vide:- TR-01-D-4276 collided with his motorbike vide:- TR-03-D-6079 near Dhalirai petrol pump. An FIR was lodged, leading to registration of Sonamura P.S. Case No. 96 of 2020. The deceased, a poultry farmer earning approx. Rs. 30,000/month, was the sole breadwinner for his family. A claim for Rs.50,00,000 was filed, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.24,98,000 on 20.08.2024 an amount the appellants consider inadequate. Rs. 31,24,724 was deposited by the insurer, and part of it was withdrawn for the minor son's urgent heart surgery. The present appeal seeks enhancement of compensation on grounds of incorrect age categorization, undervaluation of income, erroneous interest calculation from the date of filing

instead of the date of the accident, and pressing financial hardship. The family's financial hardship, highlighted by the minor son's urgent heart surgery, further justifies a higher compensation.

[4] The learned Court below after hearing the parties and on perusal of the material evidence on record has observed as under:

"30. The instant application under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioners is hereby partly allowed and a sum of Rs.24,98,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand) only is awarded in favour of claimant petitioners as compensation for the death of late Kashem Chowdhury, in a Road Traffic Accident, as aforesaid, and thus whole amount of compensation shall be paid by OP No.3, New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer of the vehicle No.TR-01-D4276 (Bolero) within a period of one month. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum to be paid from the date of f iling of claim-petition, i.e., from 17.05.2021 till the date of payment. Out of the aforesaid sum Rs.8,00,000.00 shall be paid to petitioner No.4 & 5 (being parents of the deceased) in equal share and the rest amount i.e., Rs.16,98,000.00 shall be paid to petitioner No.1, 2 & 3 in equal shares.

31. In the event of deposit of the Awarded amount with interest, Rs.1,50,000.00 each shall be released in favour of each of the claimant- petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 out of their respective shares, in their respective bank accounts for enabling them to meet necessary expenses including the maintenance and education of the minor children, and the rest amount of their respective shares shall be kept in fixed deposit schemes in any Nationalized Bank for five years in their name separately as per their share. However as claimantpetitioner Nos.2 & 3 are minors and so their entire share along with proportionate interest, shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme in a Nationalized Bank for a period of five years or for the period till attainment of their majority, whichever is later.

32. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted in the fixed deposit account nor joint name shall be allowed nor any cheque book, ATM card can be issued against fixed deposit account. However the interest to be credited in the fixed deposit may be released in favour of the claim-petitioners, except minors, as per Bank's norms."

[5] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for redress.

[6] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in Para-22 of the judgment dated 20.08.2024, wherein it has been duly recorded that the appellants had submitted the age of the deceased to be 35 years. The learned Court below, based on the Madhyamik Examination Certificate issued by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education, correctly determined the date of birth of the deceased as 05.05.1985. The accident in question occurred on

24.11.2020, and accordingly, the age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 35 years, 6 months, and 19 days, a fact which was duly acknowledged by the learned Court below however, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency in Para-25 of the judgment, the learned Court below erroneously placed the deceased in the age group of 36 to 40 years and accordingly applied a multiplier of 15, relying on the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

[7] The learned Court below awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 17.05.2021. The rate of interest and the date from which it is made payable are erroneous in law and facts. The loss of dependency in its real and legal sense commenced on the date of the accident i.e. 24.11.2020, when the deceased was declared dead by the attending medical professionals. The dependency was lost instantly and irreversibly on that date. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest from 24.11.2020, and not from the delayed date of filing the claim petition.

[8] On receipt of notice, the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle appeared and contested the case by filing separate written statements. They denied the accident, age and income of the deceased. It is also asserted that there was no fault and negligence on the part of their vehicle in the accident. However, it is stated that the vehicle bearing was duly insured with the insurance company vide policy no. 53100031190100017406 for the period from 19.01.2020 to 18.01.2021 and the vehicle had valid registration certificate and other documents and the driver also possessed valid diving license on the date of accident.

[9] The New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Insurer of vehicle No.TR-01-D-4276, Bolero) in response to the notice appeared and contested the claim by filing written statement denying the averments made by the petitioners in the petition. In their written statement they denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased as well as the fact of accident. It is stated that the deceased who was riding the motor bike bearing no. TR03- D-6079 was solely responsible for the accident, but at the same time they stated that the alleged accident took place due to head on collision between the Bolero and the motor bike and as such drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to accident.

[10] From the FIR lodged by one Nur Mohammad Chowdhury, the brother of the deceased, it is found that on 24.11.2020 at around 5-30 p.m. in the afternoon his brother Kashem Chowdhury was proceeding to his house at Udaipur by boarding a bike bearing No. TR-03-D-6079 and when he reached at Dhaliai in front of Hindustan Petroleum Agency, a vehicle bearing No. TR-01- D4276 (Bolero) coming from Melaghar side speedily dashed the motor bike and as a result his brother got severely injured and that immediately he was taken to Sonamura Hospital where the attending doctor declared him dead. The FIR reveals that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said Bolero vehicle by its driver. The witnesses have also stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.TR-01-D- 4276 (Bolero) by its driver.

[11] The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the opposite-parties but failed to rebut their testimonies by adducing cogent evidence. On the basis of the FIR a police case bearing No.96 of 2020 under Sections 279/304A of IPC and Section 184 of M.V. Act was registered at Sonamura P/S. Police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under Sections-279/304A of IPC & Section 184 of M.V. Act against the driver of the vehicle No.TR-01-D- 4276 (Bolero) namely, Rahim Miah and under Sections-279/338 of IPC & 177 M.V. Act against the rider of the motor bike bearing No. TR-03-D-6079 namely, Apu Debnath. During investigation it was revealed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles.

[12] There is no doubt that husband of the claimant No.1 died in a road accident involving motor vehicles and that deceased had no contributory negligence in the matter being a pillion rider only. The evidence of PW.1 and evidence of PW.3 clearly show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-D-4276 (Bolero). It is settled position of law that simply on the basis of charge-sheet there is no scope to disbelieve the evidence on record of the claimants before the Tribunal. In this case, the witnesses deposed that accident occurred due to fault of the Bolero vehicle. The evidence of PW.3 is more specific and reliable. He is found to be an eye witness of the accident. He deposed that the motor bike was proceeding at a normal speed of which the deceased as a pillion rider and that the Bolero vehicle came from the opposite side and suddenly went to wrong

side and dashed the motor cycle and caused the accident. Had the Bolero vehicle not gone to the wrong side, the accident would not have happened.

[13] Therefore, it is evident that Kashem Chowdhury (now deceased) sustained injuries on 24.11.2020 in a road traffic accident arising out of the use of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR-01-D4276 (Bolero) and as such, the claimant-petitioners have discharged their liability of proving that Kashem Chowdhury died following injuries sustained due to accident caused by the negligence of the driver of said offending Bolero vehicle.

[14] In view of overall analysis made by the learned Court below and after going through the material evidence in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the assessment of compensation as awarded by the learned Court below is just and proper and needs no interference thus, the findings as arrived at by the learned Court below stands affirmed. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.

[15] As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Registry is directed to do the needful as per procedure and thereafter, send down the LCRs forthwith.

DR.T. Amarnath Goud, J A.Ghosh

ANJAN GHOSH GHOSH Date: 2025.08.18 15:50:00 +05'30'