National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Sebika Nama (Modak)
2025 Latest Caselaw 194 Tri

Tripura High Court

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Sebika Nama (Modak) on 28 July, 2025

          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                AGARTALA

         M.A.C. App. No.11 of 2024

   National Insurance Company Ltd.
   Agartala Divisional Office, 42, Akhaura Road,
   PO- Agartala, PS-West Agartala,
   Sub-Division- Agartala,
   District-West Tripura, PIN-799001,
   Represented by its DIVISIONAL MANAGER;
   [Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing
   Registration no.TR-01-C-3084 (Bajaj Auto Rickshaw)].
                                       ......Appellant(s)

                        Versus

1. Smt. Sebika Nama (Modak),
   Wife of late Prasanta Modak,
   Resident of Chanpur, Khayerpur,
   Near Trinath Temple, P.S.-East Agartala,
   District- West Tripura;

2. Smt. Kajal Rani Modak,
   Wife of late Bishnupada Modak,
   Resident of Chanpur, Khayerpur,
   Near Trinath Temple, P.S.-East Agartala,
   District- West Tripura;

3. Master Debasish Modak,
   Son of late Prasanta Modak,
   Resident of Chanpur, Khayerpur,
   Near Trinath Temple, P.S.- East Agartala,
   District- West Tripura;
   (claimant respondent No.3 being minor,

Represented by his mother, claimant-respondent no.2);

4. Sri Kamal Sarkar, Son of Kalipada Sarkar, Resident of Noagaon, Krishnanagar, P.S.- Bodhjungnagar, Agartala, District-West Tripura (Owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-01-C-3084 (Bajaj Auto Rickshaw); [Owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-03-2224 (Commander Jeep)].

......Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rana Gopal Chakraborty, Adv.

Date of Hearing &
Delivery of
Judgment and
Order                  :    28.07.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting              :    NO

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                   Judgment & Order(Oral)

This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment

and award dated 03.04.2023 delivered by Learned Member,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala Court

No.5 in connection with T.S. (MAC) 132 of 2021.

2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Lodh appearing on

behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and also heard

Learned Counsel, Mr. R. G. Chakraborty appearing on behalf

of the respondent claimant petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. But

none appeared on behalf of the owner of the offending

vehicle bearing registration no.TR-03-2224 (Commander

Jeep).

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company drawn the attention of the

Court referring the claim petition filed by the respondent

claimant petitioners wherein in column no.4 they have

mentioned the occupation of the deceased as Mason and in

column no.5 they have mentioned the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, Learned Counsel

further drawn the attention of the Court referring the page

26 of the Paper Book wherein in PW-1 i.e. one of the

claimant petitioners Smt. Sebika Nama (Modak) has asserted

the following facts:-

"3. That, my husband was a good and healthy person. At the time of death my husband was 34 years old.

4. That, my husband is the only one earning member of our family. My husband earn Rs.15000/- per month from his work."

Referring the said paras, Learned Counsel drawn

the attention of the Court that the aforesaid claimant

petitioner in her examination-in-chief nowhere stated that

her husband was a mason and also nowhere stated that how

her husband used to earn Rs.15000/- per month from his

work. Even the Learned Tribunal below at the time of

determination and delivery of judgment in absence of any

documentary evidence on record simply considered the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15000/- per month.

Even the Learned Tribunal could not give any specific

account as to how he has determined the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.15000/- per month for which according

to Learned Counsel for the appellant the interference of the

Court is required.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company again submitted that Learned Tribunal also

awarded interest @ 8% per annum which was also too high

rather it should be 7.5% per annum. So, Learned Counsel for

the appellant only on those grounds urged for interference of

the judgment delivered by Learned Tribunal.

Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of

the Court referring the notification dated 04.08.2023

delivered by High Court wherein this High Court determined

the monthly income of unskilled workers at Rs.10,000/- per

month. So, Learned Counsel urged for considering the said

notification of this High Court in disposal of the appeal.

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the

respondent claimant petitioners submitted that the claimants

admittedly, could not submit any documentary evidence to

substantiate the monthly income of the deceased before the

Learned Tribunal but it is the admitted position that the

deceased was a Mason by profession and now a days in our

state one Mason earns Rs.700/- per day. In such a situation

his monthly income could be assessed to atleast Rs.20,000/-

but the Learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly

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

there is no scope to interfere with the judgment. In respect

of rate of interest he submitted that in some cases 9%

interest has been awarded by the Tribunals, so here in the

case at hand, Learned Tribunal rightly awarded 8% interest

as such there was no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal

and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

6. This present case arose out of a claim petition

filed by the respondent claimant petitioners with the

assertions that on 12.11.2020, the deceased Prasanta Modak

was returning back to home from his workplace and when he

reached near Trinath Ration shop, Khayerpur through Assam

Agartala main road at about 9.30 pm at that time one Auto

rickshaw bearing No.TR-01-C-3084 which was coming at a

very high speed from Khayerpur through Assam Agartala

Road with excessive speed suddenly dashed against Prasanta

Modak from his backside. As a result, he sustained injury on

his head and other parts of the body and immediately he was

taken to the AGMC and GBP hospital at Agartala in critical

condition by Fire service. The attending-doctor treated him

till 14.11.2020 but in course of treatment he expired on

14.11.2020 and on this issue an FIR was filed and

accordingly BJN PS Case No.2020/BJN/050 was registered

under Section 279/304A of IPC.

7. The claim petition was contested by the OP No.1

i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle who denied the

assertions of the claimant petitioners in the claim petition

and further took the plea that on the alleged day of accident

the vehicle had relevant valid documents including the

driving licence.

8. The Insurance Company i.e. the present appellant

herein also contested the case by filling written statement

denying the assertions of the claimant petitioners and the

Insurance Company also took the plea that the claim petition

was subjected to strict proof by the claimant petitioners.

9. Upon the pleadings of the parties Learned Tribunal

below framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether deceased Prasanta Modak died due to road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of Auto Rickshaw TR01C3084 on 12.11.2020 at 9.30 pm near Trinath Rationshop, Khayerpur on Assam-Agartala Road?

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

                (iv)    What   should      be    the     amount    of
                compensation?


                (v) Who is liable to pay compensation?

In order to prove the issues, the respondent claimant

petitioner adduced one witness PW-1, Smt. Sebika Nama

(Modak) and relied upon some documents which were

marked as exhibits and the respondent O.P. No.1, Kamal

Sarkar also examined as OPW.1 and relied upon some

documents which were also marked as exhibits. For the sake

of convenience I would like to refer herein below the name of

witnesses and their exhibited documents which are as

follows:-

Claimant' Witness:-

PW.1 - Smt. Sebika Nama Modak.

Claimant- Exhibits:-

Ext.1:- Certified copy of printed FIR.

Ext.2:- Certified copy of FIR.

Ext.3:- Photocopy of death certificate.

Ext.4:- Photocopy of postmortem report.

Ext.5:- Certified copy of seizure list.

Ext.6:- Certified copy of PM report.

Ext.7:- Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Opposite party's Witness:-

OPW.1- Sri Kamal Sarkar.

Exhibits by Opposite party No.1:-

Ext.A- Photocopy of Registration certificate.

Ext.B- Photocopy of driving licence.

Ext.C- Photocopy of Insurance certicate.

Ext.D- Photocopy of fitness certificate.

10. Finally, on conclusion of the enquiry the Learned

Tribunal below by the judgment and award dated 03.04.2023

allowed the claim petition. The operative portion of the

Order/Award runs as follows:-

Order/Award

The OP No.2, The National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the awarded compensation of Rs.28,53,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh fifty three 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 20.08.2021 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.3 is minor the full amount of him is to be fixed deposited for the period of 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 2 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.

Challenging that award the appellant Insurance

Company has preferred this appeal.

11. I have heard both the sides at length and also

perused the judgment delivered by the Learned Tribunal

below. There is no dispute on record in respect of the fact of

accident on the alleged day and also the fact of death of the

deceased due to accident. Admittedly, before the Learned

Tribunal the respondent claimant petitioners could not

produce any monthly income certificate of the deceased at

Rs.15000/- also they could not produce and prove any

documentary evidence on record that the deceased was a

Mason. However, to substantiate the said contention there

was no contrary evidence on record from the side of the

contesting respondents. Situated thus, we can safely

presume that the deceased was mason by profession.

12. Now regarding determination of the monthly

income it appears that the Learned Tribunal below without

assigning any cogent reasons determined the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.15000/- per month which in

the considered opinion of this Court was not proper.

However, the accident took place on 12.11.2020 and during

that period if we admit that the deceased was a Mason and

his daily wages was not less than Rs.500/- per day and

considering his status we also could assess that he used to

perform his job atleast for 25 days in a month. So in such a

situation we can safely assess his monthly income on that

relevant point of time at Rs.12500/- (rounded off Rs.13000/-

). It is also on record that the deceased was 35 years old at

the time of accident. The appellant and also the owner of the

vehicle did not dispute anything regarding the age of the

deceased. However, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case this Court determines the monthly income of the

deceased at the time of his death at Rs.13000/- per month

and with that amount in view of the judgment of National

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in

AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of amount be added towards

future income which stands at Rs.5200/- (Rupees five

thousand two hundred). Hence, loss of income comes to

Rs.(13000+5200)/-= Rs.18,200/- (Rupees eighteen

thousand two hundred) only.

As the deceased was a family man so towards

personal expenses 1/3rd amount be deducted, in that case

the same comes to Rs. (18200/3)/-=Rs.6066/- (Rupees six

thousand sixty six). So after deduction loss of income would

comes to Rs.(18200-6067)/-= Rs.12,133/- (Rupees twelve

thousand one hundred thirty three). With the aforesaid

amount after applying multiplier of 16 the total loss of

income of the deceased would comes to Rs.(12133x12x16)/-

=Rs.23,29,536/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs twenty nine

thousand five hundred thirty six). With that amount towards

consortium the respondent claimant petitioners would get

Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) i.e.

Rs.(40,000x3)/-.

The respondent claimants were further awarded

loss of estate Rs.15000/- and towards funeral expenses

Rs.15000/-. So, in view of the judgment of Pranay Shethi

(supra), the aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the

rate of 10% in every 3 years. Thus, the total amount of

compensation in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses

and loss of consortium would comes to Rs.1,65,000/-

(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand). Thus, the total

compensation after calculation would stands at

Rs.(23,29,536+1,65,000)/-=Rs.24,94,536/- (Rupees twenty

four lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred thirty six). So,

after modification, the respondent claimant petitioners would

be entitled to get Rs.24,94,536/- (rupees twenty four lakhs

ninety four thousand five hundred thirty six) only which the

appellant Insurance Company shall pay that amount to the

respondent claimant petitioners.

Further considering the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in different cases, the respondent claimant

petitioners would also get interest @7.5% in place of 8% as

awarded by the Learned Tribunal.

13. Since the notification dated 04.08.2023 was

issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura was

for the purpose of Lok Adalat. So, the same is not taken into

consideration at the time of delivery of this judgment.

However, it is worthwhile to mention here that in most of the

cases it is found that sometimes it becomes difficult on the

part of day labourer, mason, rickshaw puller or any other

workers of like nature and the workers of the unorganized

sector those who are not enrolled to any establishment and

also are earning daily wages in absence of any regular

employment. In such a case, in the event of death of any

worker it becomes difficult on the part of their family

members to produce any income certificate to substantiate

their case before the Tribunal. It is also the admitted position

that due to change of market condition the daily wages of

those workers have been increased accordingly. So, it is

expected that the Labour Department of the State may

address this issue by issuing a SOP like the circular issued by

the High Court vide notification dated 04.08.2023 which may

assist family members of the deceased/workers to approach

to the Court or Tribunal, if any, to substantiate their

respective claim petitions/petition in near future.

Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Tripura be

asked to communicate a order to the Commissioner, Labour,

State of Tripura to look into the matter and to pass an

administrative order in this regard with intimation to the

Registry of the High Court within a period of 3 (three)

months.

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

Insurance Company is partly allowed with the modification

that the respondent claimant petitioners would be entitled to

get total amount of compensation of Rs.24,94,536/- (Rupees

twenty four lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred thirty

six) along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of

filing the claim petition that is on and from 20.08.2021 to till

the date of realization/payment.

The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit

the amount to the Learned Tribunal below within a period of

2 months from the date of delivery of judgment if not

deposited. However, the disbursal of payment would be

made in pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Learned

Tribunal below on 03.04.2023.

With this observation, this present appeal stands

disposed of.

Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal

below along with a copy of this judgment/order.

Supply a copy of this judgment/order to Learned

Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company for information

and compliance and also a copy of this judgment/order be

furnished to Learned Counsel for the respondent claimant

petitioners for information.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

                                                            JUDGE




Amrita



AMRITA DEB          AMRITA DEB
                    Date: 2025.07.31
                    10:38:43 +05'30'