Tripura High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance vs Sri Chitta Ranjan Chowdhury on 12 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
M.A.C. App. No.110 of 2024
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Represented by its
Authorized Signatory,
1st Floor, Above „W‟ Showroom
Mantribari Road, Old RMS Chowmuhani,
P.S.-West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
{Insurer of Vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-
01-AA-1744 (Bolero Pick Up Van Flat Bed)}
......Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Chitta Ranjan Chowdhury,
S/o. Lt. Sarada Ranjan Chowdhury,
Resident of Krishnanagar, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
......Claimant-Respondent(s)
2. Sri Gobinda Chandra Deb,
S/o. Gopal Chandra Deb,
Resident of Dakshin Kashipur, Khayerpur,
P.S.- East Agartala District: West Tripura.
(The owner of the vehicle bearing registration
No. TR-01-AA-1744, Bolero Pick Up Van Flat Bed).
......Owner-Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.
Mr. Pratik Bhowmik, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment and Order : 12.03.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is filed
by the appellant Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the
Judgment and award dated 14.06.2024 delivered by Learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura
District, Agartala, Tripura in connection with Case No.T.S.
(MAC) 14 of 2017. By the said judgment and award Learned
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.26,98,000/-with 6%
interest per annum from the date of filing the claimant
petition w.e.f. 18.01.2017 till the date of realization and
fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the
Insurance Company Ltd., i.e, the appellant herein.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. R. Saha appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company Ltd. and also heard
Learned Counsel Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of the
respondent-claimant and Mr. Pratik Bhowmik Learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent owner.
3. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
appellant only drawn the attention of this Court in respect of
future prospects awarded by the Learned Tribunal below and
submitted that in view of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, since the petitioner was more than 60 years at
the time of accident, so the Tribunal at the time of
determination of compensation wrongly calculated 10% of
amount as future prospects which was not permissible in
view of the said judgment.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further drawn
the attention of the Court referring Exbt.2 i.e. the Disability
Certificate wherein the age of the victim was shown as 69
years. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged
accident took place on 20.02.2016 and the said Disability
Certificate was issued on 27.07.2016. So according to the
Learned Counsel for the appellant, the Learned Tribunal
below ignoring the principle of law laid down by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the aforenoted case wrongly awarded 10% of
income as future prospects and urged for deducting the
same amount from the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. So, Learned Counsel for the appellant urged for
allowing this appeal to the aforesaid extent as stated above.
5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-claimant-petitioner also concurred the same
submission made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant
and fairly submitted that in view of the said citation of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court, the same is not permissible in the eye of
law and urged for passing appropriate order. Learned
Counsel for the respondent-owner did not submit anything
but fairly submitted that on the alleged of accident his
vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance
Company.
6. I have seen the judgment and award of the
Learned Tribunal below and it appears that at the time of
determination of compensation Learned Tribunal below
determined the age of the claimant-petitioner in between 56-
60 and decided to add 10% of the monthly income to be
added as future prospects which in my considered view
Learned Tribunal below committed error in delivering the
judgment ignoring the principle of law laid down by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforenoted case. Situated thus,
the said amount of 10% added by Learned Tribunal below
needs to be deducted from the amount of calculation
determined by the learned Tribunal below. Accordingly, after
deduction of said 10%, the calculation of compensation
would be as follows:
(i) Income per month = Rs.10,000/- (there is no
dispute to that amount by either of the parties).
(ii) After deletion of 10% of monthly income as
determined, compensation would be by applying multiplier of
9 i.e. Rs.(10,000X12X9)/-=Rs.10,80,000/-
With Rs.10,80,000/- for the amount of
Rs.(12,50,000+90,000+1,00,000+10,000+60,000)/- would
be added. So after totaling of the said figures the actual
amount of compensation would comes to Rs.25,90,000/-
which the present respondent-claimant-petitioner would be
entitled to get.
7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of to the
extent that the claimant-petitioner will be entitled to get the
award of Rs.25,90,000/- with 6% simple interest per annum
from the date of registration of the claim that is w.e.f.
18.01.2017 to till the date of realization. Since it is already
ordered that the present appellant herein is to pay the
compensation to the claimant-petitioner, so the appellant is
asked to pay the said amount to the claimant-petitioner with
interest within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today to the
Registry of the High Court and the appellant Insurance
Company Ltd. shall also be at liberty to recover the said
amount from the O.P. No.1 Sri Gobinda Chandra Deb, i.e.
the owner on the principle of "pay and recover" policy.
8. Supply a copy of this judgment/order to the
Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for
the respondent-claimant-petitioner free of cost.
The appeal is thus disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, is accordingly
stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA +05'30'
Amrita
