Tripura High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Pushpa Debbarma (Wife Of Deceased) on 28 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
M.A.C. App. No.90 of 2024
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Agartala Division,
4, Mantribari Road,
P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura,
Pin-799001.
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
(Insurer of vehicle bearing No.
AS-10-C-3601 Tata Sumo Gold)
......Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Pushpa Debbarma (wife of deceased),
W/o. Late Pradip Debbarma.
2. Sri Bhuban Debbarma (son of deceased),
S/o. Late Pradip Debbarma.
3. Smt. Rumi Debbarma (daughter of deceased),
D/o. Late Pradip Debbarma.
4. Sri Prem Debbarma (son of deceased),
S/o. Late Pradip Debbarma.
-All are resident of Manirampara,
P.S. Teliamura, District- Khowai Tripura.
Presently residing at A.D. Nagar,
Suryapara, P.S.- A.D. Nagar,
District - West Tripura.
(Claimant respondent No.4 is being minor represented
by his mother claimant respondent no.1).
......Claimant-Respondent(s)
5. Sri Dilwar Hussain,
S/o. Late Ismail Ali,
Resident of Barapunji,
P.O.- Barapunji, P.S.- Nilambazar,
District- Karimganj,
State- Assam, Pin-788781.
(Owner of vehicle bearing No.
AS-10-C-3601, Tata Sumo Gold)
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Adv.
Mr. Subhankar Deb, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment and Order : 21.05.2025
Date of Delivery
of Judgment : 28.05.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal is preferred by the appellant
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award
dated 15.04.2024 delivered by Learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in
connection with Case No. T.S.(MAC) No.256 of 2021. By the
said judgment and award Learned Tribunal below has
awarded a sum of Rs.12,98,000/- in favour of the claimant
petitioner and directed the appellant Insurance Company to
pay the said amount of compensation to the respondent
claimant petitioners with 7% interest per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 22.12.2021 to till
the date of payment.
2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar
Das along with Learned Counsel, Mr. Subhankar Deb
appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and
also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Samar Das appearing on
behalf of the respondent claimant petitioners.
3. At the time of hearing of argument, Learned
Counsel, Mr. G. S. Das appearing on behalf of the appellant
Insurance Company drawn the attention of this Court that
the only point of argument in this appeal is that the Learned
Tribunal below at the time of determination of compensation
determined the multiplier 11 relying upon the judgment of
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
treating the age group of the deceased in between 51 to 55
years. But the claimant petitioner No.1 Smt. Pushpa
Debbarma in course of her cross-examination by the
appellant Insurance Company on 09.06.2023 stated that she
is 60 years old and her husband i.e. the deceased was 2
(two) years older than her. According to Learned Counsel, if
this evidence of the witnesses is taken into consideration, in
that case on the date of alleged accident the age of the
deceased was above 60 (sixty) years and in that case, in
view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the present case multiplier would
be 9 in place of 11. But the Learned Tribunal below did not
consider the same and at the time of delivery of judgment
taken into consideration multiplier as 11.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company further at the time of hearing of argument
submitted that the Learned Tribunal below based upon the
PM examination report determined the age of 55 years at the
time of death and applied the multiplier of 9 in place of 11 in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court India in
Sarla Verma (Supra).
5. Furthermore, according to Learned Counsel before
the Tribunal below the respondent claimant petitioners did
not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate the
age of the deceased. As such, the appeal be allowed and the
judgment and award delivered by Learned Tribunal below be
interfered with and set aside.
6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent claimant petitioners drawn the attention of the
Court that in the claim petition the respondent-claimant
petitioners stated that the deceased Pradip Debbarma was
46 years at the time of his death. However, the claimant
petitioner No.1 i.e. PW-1 Pushpa Debbarma being the wife of
the deceased in her examination-in-chief in Para No.3
specifically stated that the deceased was 46 years of age old
at the time of his death. But during cross-examination by the
appellant Insurance Company, the said petitioner being a
rustic lady without understanding the consequences, stated
that on the date of deposition before the Tribunal she was 60
years and her husband was 2 (two) years older than her and
furthermore, the respondent claimant petitioners before the
Tribunal on 09.06.2023 submitted some documents
containing 7 (seven) sheets like other Aadhar Card, Voter ID
Card, School Certificate, Death Certificate, Survival
Certificate of the deceased including the Voter ID Card and
Aadhar Card of the informant PW-1. But surprisingly those
documents could not be exhibited and if those documents
are scrutinized it would be found that the deceased was 46
years old at the time of his death. To counter this submission
of Learned Counsel, Mr. Samar Das for the respondent
claimant petitioners, Learned Counsel, Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar
Das further submitted that since no cross appeal is preferred
by the respondent claimant petitioners so at this stage, this
Court cannot take into consideration those documents to
remove the defects of the case and urged for setting aside
the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal below by
allowing this appeal.
7. Considered.
8. Now let us discuss about the subject matter of the
case.
The respondent claimant petitioners filed one
claim petition before the Learned Tribunal below under
Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation due to the
death of deceased Pradip Debbarma by a road traffic
accident on 18.04.2001 in the morning at about 06.00 am
near Tuichindrai market on NH-08 road, under Teliamura
Police Station. On 18.04.2001 when the victim Pradip
Debbarma was proceeding on foot for morning walk keeping
himself on the extreme left side of the road and when he
reached at Tuichindrai market on NH-08 road, under
Teliamura Police Station, District-Khowai, Tripura that time
one vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-10-C-3601, Tata
Sumo Gold which was coming from Teliamura being driven
very rashly and negligently by its driver suddenly dashed the
victim Pradip Debbarma and as a result of which Pradip
Debbarma fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries on its person. Immediately thereafter the victim was
brought to Teliamura Sub-divisional Hospital with the help of
fire Service where the attending doctor declared him dead.
The post mortem was conducted over the dead body of the
deceased and it was further submitted that the deceased was
46 years old at the time of accident and used to earned
Rs.21,000/- per month being a carpenter and according to
the respondent claimant petitioners, the accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-10-C-3601 and
on that issue, a case was registered vide Teliamura P.S. Case
No.43 of 2021 under Section-279/304(A) of IPC. Upon
receipt of the notice, the O.P. No.1 being the owner of the
offending vehicle appeared and filed written statement
denying the assertions of the claimant petitioners in their
claim petition.
9. It was further submitted that, on the alleged day,
the vehicle was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance
Company and if any amount is awarded according to the
owner that should be borne by the Insurance Company. The
Insurance Company also appeared and filed written
statement denying the entire assertions of the claimant
petitioners in their claim petition and finally submitted that
the claim petition was subjected to strict proof by the
claimant petitioners.
10. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned
Tribunal below framed the following issues:-
"(i) Whether the case is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the deceased Pradip Debbarma
sustained injury on 18.04.2021 at morning about 0600
hours near Tuichindrai market on NH-08 road under
Teliamura PS in a Road Traffic accident involving the
vehicle bearing No.AS-10-C-3601 (Tata Sumo Gold) due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of said offending
vehicle bearing No.AS-10-C-3601 (Tata Sumo Gold) and
resulting death of Pradip Debbarma at Teliamura Sub-
Divisional hospital?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to award as
claimed for and whether the OP No.2 i.e. Noticee is held
liable to pay the same?"
11. For the sake of convenience the names of the
witnesses and the documentary evidence of the parties are
mentioned herein below:-
Claimant' Witness:-
PW.1- Smti Pushpa Debbarma
Claimant' Exhibits:-
Ext.1:- Certified copy of Printed FIR.
Ext.2:- Certified copy of ejahar.
Ext.3:- Certified copy of computerized FIR.
Ext.4:- Certified copy of handsketch map.
Ext.5:- Certified copy of MVI report and scientific
investigation of RTA.
Ext.6:- Certified copy of seizure list.
Ext.7:- Certificate of PM report.
Ext.8:- Certificate of final report.
Opposite party's witness:-
OPW.1- Sri Dilowar Hossen
Exhibits by Opposite party:-
Ext.A:- Death certificate of Ismile Ali
Ext.B:- Certificate of Insurance.
Ext.C:- Driving liscence of Dilowar Hussain
Ext.D:- Certificate of registration.
Ext.E:- Certificate of fitness.
12. Finally on conclusion of enquiry, the Learned
Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and passed the
award as stated above. The operative portion of the award
runs as follows:-
ORDER/AWARD
"The instant application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is hereby partly allowed and a
sum of Rs.12,98,000/- (Rupees twelve lacs ninety eight
thousand only) is awarded in favour of the claimant-
petitioners as compensation for the death of Pradip
Debbarma, in a road traffic accident, as aforesaid and the
opposite party No.2, the New India Assurance Company
Limited, being insurer of the offending vehicle bearing
registration No.AS-10-C-3601 (Tata Sumo Gold) shall pay
the entire amount of compensation within a period of one
month from today. The aforesaid amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 7% per annum to be paid from the
date of filing of the claim application i.e., from 22.12.2021
till the date of payment.
Distribution of Compensation
The claimant Nos.1-4 being legal heirs of the
deceased are entitled to get compensation equally.
Protection Awarded Compensation
In the event of the deposit of the awarded amount
with interest, 50% of the amount shall be released in
favour of claimant No.1, 2 and 3 in their individual bank
account and the remaining 50% shall be kept in fixed
deposit scheme in any Nationalized Bank for five years in
their name.
Claimant No.4 being minor, his entire share will be
deposited in the fixed deposit scheme for the period till his
attaining the age 21 years or for five years whichever is
later.
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 the claimants without any further
order from the Tribunal."
Challenging the award the appellant Insurance
Company has preferred this appeal.
13. I have heard both the sides and perused the
record of the Learned Tribunal below including the judgment
and award delivered by the Learned Tribunal below. It is on
record that the claimant petitioners in their claim petition
mentioned that at the time of death, the age of the deceased
was 46 years. Even PW-1 in her examination-in-chief stated
that, at the time of death, the age of the deceased was 46
years. But surprisingly said PW-1 in course of her cross-
examination by the appellant Insurance Company stated that
on 09.06.2023 her age was 60 and her husband was more 2
years older than her. It is surprising that how the said
witness deposed the said fact before the Court during her
cross-examination. It may so happen that the said PW-1
Smt. Pushpa Debbarma being the wife of the deceased being
a rustic lady without understanding the nature of the case or
without having any specific idea deposed the said fact before
the Tribunal. Now if her that portion of evidence is taken into
consideration, in that case it can be presumed that on the
day of alleged accident, the age of the victim was almost
more than 60 years.
In this regard, I would like to refer Para No.42 of
the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Sarla
Verma (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
as under:-
"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas
:(1994) 2 SCC 176, Trilok Chandra: (1996) 4 SCC
362 and Charlie:(2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts
with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by
one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to
30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to
50 years, then reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to
60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to
70 years."
From the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court it appears that multiplier 11 would be applicable if the
age of the deceased is in between 51 to 55 years, multiplier
9 would be applicable if the age is in between 56 to 60 years,
multiplier 7 would be applicable the age of the deceased is
61-65 years and multiplier 5 would be available if the age of
the deceased is 66 to 70 years.
14. It is on record that in the Post Mortem
examination report, the age of the deceased has been shown
as 55 years. But it has not been mentioned on what basis
the age of 55 years was written. It may so happen that
based on the requisition of police the age has been
mentioned in the Post Mortem examination report.
15. It is also on record that, on 09.06.2023 some
photocopies of documents containing 7 sheets were
submitted by the claimant petitioners before the Tribunal by
a Firisti and accordingly necessary stamp entry was made.
But surprisingly on perusal of the order sheet it appears that,
nothing has been mentioned by the Learned Tribunal below
in the order sheet regarding submission of photocopies of
documents by the respondent claimant petitioners on that
day Learned Tribunal be cautious in passing orders in a case
of this nature in near future, so that no such error is
committed.
16. On bare perusal of those photocopies of
documents, it appears that the age of the deceased on the
date of accident was almost 46 years. If it is so then the
multiplier would be 13 but the Tribunal determined the
multiplier as 11 treating the age in between 51 to 55 years
in Para No.17 of the Judgment of the award. In that case the
amount may be varied.
17. Learned Counsel for the appellant in course of
hearing submitted that the documents cannot be taken into
consideration at this stage as no cross objection/appeal is
filed by the respondent claimant petitioners. This submission
made by Learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be
accepted as because it is the respondent claimant petitioners
who submitted the documents before the Learned Tribunal
below by a Firisti on 09.06.2023. But for any reason the
same could not be brought into record but those documents
were duly stamped by the concerned staff of the Court. It
may so upon that, Learned Counsel for the claimant
petitioners over looked the matter and did not make any
submission in this regard before the Tribunal for which the
said might have lost sight of the Tribunal.
18. Situated thus, it appears that the respondent
claimant petitioners should be given the opportunity to
produce the relevant documents to substantiate the age of
the deceased before the Tribunal below and to take step for
marking exhibits of those documents.
19. In view of the above, the Judgment and award
delivered by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No.5, West Tripura, Agartala needs to be interfered with by
setting aside the judgment and award of the Learned
Tribunal.
20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is
hereby allowed. The Judgment and award dated 15.04.2024
delivered by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.
(MAC) No.256 of 2021 is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Learned Tribunal below with a
direction to the respondent claimant petitioners to produce
the relevant documents in respect of age of the deceased
before the Tribunal for marking of exhibits which the
respondent claimant petitioners submitted before the
Tribunal below on 09.06.2023 by a Firisti. Accordingly, the
Learned Tribunal below shall record evidence a fresh of both
the parties both oral/documentary and thereafter shall
deliver a fresh judgment in accordance with law within a
period of 6 (six) months from the date of passing of this
judgment/order. Both the parties shall accordingly appear
before the Learned Tribunal below on 24.06.2025.
The appeal is thus disposed of.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this
judgment/order.
Pending application(s), if any, is accordingly
stands disposed of.
JUDGE
AMRITA Digitally signed by
AMRITA DEB
DEB Date: 2025.05.29
12:53:20 +05'30'
Amrita
