Tripura High Court
Smti. Archana Deb vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd on 21 February, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App No. 106 of 2024
1. Smti. Archana Deb,
W/o Late Bimal Deb.
2. Smti. Papiya Deb,
D/o Late Bimal Deb.
3. Smti. Rakhi Deb,
D/o Late Bimal Deb.
4. Shri. Prasenjit Deb,
S/o Late Bimal Deb.
All are residents of Mahadeb Para, Taranagar, P.S-Sidhai,
District-West Tripura.
.......Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(represented by its Manager) Mantribari Road,
P.S- West Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-799001.
(Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration
No.TR-03-D-0608, Maruti Echo).
2. Shri. Dipankar Debnath,
S/o Dulal Debnath of Shankhola, 22 Card Para,
Ishanpur, P.S- Sidhai, District- West Tripura,
PIN-799212. (Owner of the offending vehicle
bearing registration No. TR-03-D-0608, Maruti Eeco).
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. S Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. P Maishan, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Judgment & Order (Oral)
21.02.2025
Heard Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants as well as Mr. S Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P Maishan, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
[2] The award passed by learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala dated 26.03.2024 in
T.S. (MAC) 125 of 2021 is under challenge in this appeal.
[3] The sole issue involved in the appeal is that there were
four dependant petitioners who filed the claim petition before the
learned Tribunal and therefore, according to the appellants, one-
fourth from the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been
deducted on the ground of personal and living expenses of the
deceased, but erroneously one-third has been deducted by learned
Tribunal below on that count. Learned counsel Mr. Bhattacharjee, for
the claimant-appellants submits that only this correction is required
in this appeal in respect of the award passed by the Tribunal.
[4] Admittedly one Bimal Deb, husband of appellant No.1 and
father of the remaining appellants died in a road traffic accident
occurred on 04.03.2021 on Agartala-Simna road under Sidhai Police
Station arising out of use of vehicle No. TR-03-D-0608 (Maruti Eeco).
[5] Learned Tribunal below decided the age of the deceased
to be 49 years and his monthly income to be Rs.18,000/- as driver of
LMV and further 25% was added thereupon in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680.
[6] There is no challenge regarding determination of such age
and income by the learned Tribunal but while determining the loss of
dependency learned Tribunal deducted one-third on account of
personal expenditure of deceased as evident in para 15 of the
impugned award and awarded compensation of Rs.23,40,000/- on
the count of loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal further awarded
compensation for loss of estate @Rs.18000/-, loss of consortium @
Rs.48,000/- each to the appellants and funeral expenses @ Rs.
18,000/- and thus determining total compensation at Rs.25,68,000/.
[7] Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee, submits that as per
the principle laid down by the Apex court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 one-fourth from the income of the deceased ought to have been
deducted by learned Tribunal on account of personal expenses, which
is required to be corrected. Learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty, also
accedes to the said submission.
[8] This court finds the submission of both the learned
counsel acceptable, in view of the principle laid down in Sarla
Verma (supra). Learned Tribunal committed error while deducting
one-third from the income of the deceased on the count of such
personal and living expenses. Therefore necessary correction is
required to be done with respect to the compensation awarded by
learned Tribunal accordingly.
[9] Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee, also refers to the
Survival Certificate issued by the SDM, Mohanpur in the name of the
present appellants only as sole legal representatives of the deceased
Bimal Deb and submits that as the parents of the deceased were not
alive, they were not impleaded as party in this case.
[10] From the detailed accident information report as
submitted by the Police Officer before the Tribunal and as tagged
with this record, it is seen that the Investigating Police Officer has
also mentioned the names of the present appellants only as the
dependant legal representatives of the deceased.
[11] In view of the above and by way of correction of the error
committed by learned Tribunal, the compensation is re-calculated as
under:-
Monthly income of the deceased - Rs.18,000/- plus 25% added
thereupon, as per the principle laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra),
comes to Rs.22,500/-
After deduction of one fourth therefrom, loss of dependency
per month is calculated to - Rs. 16,875/-.
The total compensation on loss of dependency is, therefore,
assessed at Rs.16,875 X 12 X 13 = Rs.26,32,500/-.
Compensation on the counts of Loss of estate at Rs.18,000/-,
loss of consortium at Rs.48,000/- for each of the claimants, and
funeral expenses at Rs.18,000/- are kept unaltered.
Therefore, total compensation is assessed at Rs.28,60,500/-.
[12] There is no dispute regarding apportionment of the award
made by learned Tribunal and also regarding keeping of 50% from
the share of each appellant in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank
and therefore, the same are kept unaltered. Learned counsel, Mr. S
Chakraborty, appearing for the Insurance Company prays for
exempting from making any payment of interest for the period of
pendency of the appeal but such submission is not convincing and
acceptable for the reason that there is no cross appeal filed by the
Insurance Company against the impugned award and the claimant-
appellants are in no way responsible for the error which has been
rectified today.
[13] In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
award dated 26.03.2004 is partly modified. The appellant will get
compensation @ Rs.28,60,500/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing the appeal till actual payment and the
respondent No.1 is directed to make the payment with interest
accordingly.
With the aforesaid modifications, the instant appeal is allowed
and disposed of. Interim application, if any, stands disposed of.
Consign the trial court record with the copy of the judgment.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Date: 2025.02.25 15:07:49 +05'30'
Satabdi
