Tripura High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Pranati Debnath on 29 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.5 of 2024
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by the Divisional Manager,
Office at A. K. Road, P.S.-West Agartala,
District-West Tripura (Insurer of the offending vehicle No.TR-01-AF-
4852(motor cycle)).
---- Opposite Party No.2-Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Pranati Debnath,
D/O Sri Narayan Debnath,
2. Smt. Saraswati Debnath
D/O Sri Narayan Debnath
3. Sri Rupan Debnath
S/O Sri Narayan Debnath
4. Sri Rajesh Debnath
S/O Sri Narayan Debnath
All are residing at Bijoynagar, Near Bijoynagar High School,
P.S.-Sidhai, District-West Tripura, Pin-799211.
---- Claimant Respondents
5. Smt. Kanan Debnath (Saha)
W/O Lt. Subal Saha
Of Durjoynagar, Near Durjoynagar School, Natun Nagar
PS-Airport, District-West Tripura.
(Owner of the offending vehicle No.TR-01-AF-4852(Motor cycle))
----Opposite Party-Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rajasree Purkayashtha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv,
Mr. Subham Majumder, Adv.
Date of hearing : 27.05.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 29.05.2025
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal under Section 173 of MV Act is
preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment
and award dated 17.06.2023 delivered by Learned MAC
Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case
No.TS(MAC) No.125 of 2019. By the said judgment and award,
Learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs.15,32,536/-
with 7.5 % p.a. with effect from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. on 11.06.2019 to till the date of realization.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and
also heard Learned Counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh along with Learned
Counsel Mr. Subham Majumder appearing on behalf of the
respondent-claimant petitioners. None appeared on behalf of
the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Taking part in the hearing Learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company first of all drawn the attention of
the Court referring PM examination report where the age of the
deceased has been shown as 50 years without any basis and
further drawn the attention of the Court to the forwarding
report(Exbt.-4/1) wherein the concerned Doctor at the time of
sending requisition to O/C GB outpost, Tripura (West) has
mentioned the age of the deceased as 65 years. Furthermore,
Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court referring the
examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of witness Rupam
Debnath wherein the said witness has mentioned that at the
time of death his mother was 49 years old and submitted that
in support of the actual age of the deceased the respondent-
claimant petitioners have failed to produce any documentary
evidence before the Learned Tribunal below and without any
basis as to how the concerned doctor mentioned the age of the
deceased as 50 years, the Learned Tribunal below applied the
multiplier of 13 which was not proper in absence of
documentary evidence on record.
Learned Counsel for the appellant in her second
part of argument submitted that the monthly income of the
deceased was determined at Rs.9,180/-. The deceased was a
day labourer and the Learned Tribunal below did not give any
observation as to how the said amount was determined at the
time of delivery of judgment. So, in summing up Learned
Counsel for the Insurance Company urged for interference with
the judgment and award delivered by Learned Tribunal below
by allowing this appeal.
4. On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Sankar
Lodh appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant petitioners
first of all drawn the attention of the Court to the claim petition
filed by the respondent-claimant petitioners wherein in the
respective column of age of the deceased it was written as 49
years at the time of death. Learned Counsel further drawn the
attention of the Court referring the written statement filed by
the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company wherein
those contesting respondents did not dispute anything
regarding the age of the deceased. Further Learned Counsel Mr.
Lodh drawn the attention of the Court referring the
examination-in-chief in affidavit of Sri Rupam Debnath wherein
in para No.4 of his examination-in-chief, he specifically stated
that at the time of death his mother was 49 years old and in
this regard the appellant-Insurance Company during cross-
examination did not raise any objection regarding age of the
deceased so at this stage there is no scope to raise this issue by
the appellant that no documentary evidence was adduced by
the respondent-claimant petitioners before the Learned Tribunal
below. Learned Counsel Mr. Lodh further submitted that even
this High Court also has determined the minimum wages of a
labourer at Rs.10,000/- per month. Here in the case at hand
the Learned Tribunal below based upon the notification issued
by Labour department, Government of Tripura determined the
revised pay of wages for the highly skilled worker at Rs.306/-
per day and thus calculated the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.9,180/- per month, so, there was no infirmity in
the said observation made by the Learned Tribunal below in this
regard. So, in summing up Learned Counsel for the respondent-
claimant petitioners fairly submitted before the Court that there
was no infirmity or inconsistency in the judgment delivered by
Learned Tribunal below and urged for dismissal of this appeal.
5. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent-
claimant petitioners filed one claim petition before the Learned
Tribunal below alleging inter alia that on 31.01.2019 Subhasi
Debnath (since dead) was proceeding towards her house from
nearby her relative's house by walking maintaining herself with
the extreme left side of the road and in course of the journey
when she reached near Bijoynagar High School that time a
vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-01-AF-4852(Motor cycle)
which was coming from the same direction with high speed due
to rash and negligent driving by its rider suddenly lost control
over the vehicle and dashed against the victim for which the
accident took place. As a result of which, said Subhasi
Debnath(since dead) sustained grevious head injury, neck
injury, chest injury, abdomen injury and injuries to other parts
of her body. Immediately thereafter with the aid of the local
people she was brought to one Primary Health Centre but
considering her injuries as grevious in nature, the attending
doctor referred her to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala and then
and there she was taken to AGMC & GBP Hospital wherein she
was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient but during
treatment in the hospital she succumbed to her injuries on
01.02.2019. On the basis of that accident, Sidhai PS case
No.9/2019 under Section 279/338 of IPC was registered and
later on Section 304A of IPC was added.
The claim petition was contested by the OP No.1-
the owner of the offending bike by filing written statement
denying the entire assertions of the claimant petitioners and
further took the plea that on the alleged day the vehicle was
assured with the National Insurance Company Ltd.
The OP No.2-Insurance Company also contested
the claim petition by filing written statement denying the
assertions of the respondent-claimant petitioners in their claim
petition and further submitted that the claim petition is
subjected to strict proof by the respondent-claimant petitioners.
6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned
Tribunal below framed the following issues:
i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present
form and nature?
ii) If the death of Subhasi Debnath was caused due to
a road traffic accident which occurred on
31.01.2019 at about 14:00 hours at Bijoynagar High
School on Agartala-Simna road under Sidhai PS due
to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TR-01-AF-4852, (Motor
Cycle)? If so, is the claimant petitioner entitled to
get compensation as prayed for?
iii) Who shall be liable for payment of compensation to
the claimant petitioner?
7. To substantiate the issues, the appellant-claimant
petitioner has adduced oral/documentary evidence on record
which were marked as Exhibits.
Name of the witness of the appellant-claimant petitioner:
1. PW-1: Sri Rupan Debnath
Exhibits of the appellant-claimant petitioner:
1. Exbt.1: Certified copy of printed FIR.
2. Exbt.2: Certified copy of FIR.
3. Exbt.3: Certified copy of Seizure list.
4. Exbt.4: Certified copy of postmortem report.
5. Exbt.5: Certified copy of charge sheet.
Finally, on conclusion of enquiry Learned Tribunal
below allowed the claim petition of the respondent-claimant
petitioners and fastened the liability of payment of
compensation upon the Insurance Company. The operative
portion of the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal
below runs as follows:
O R D E R/A W A R D
"The OP No.2, The National Insurance Company Ltd
is directed to deposit the awarded compensation of
Rs.15,32,536/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs thirty two
thousand five hundred thirty six) only within 30
days from today with interest thereon at the rate of
7.5% per annum with effect from date of filing of
the claim application i.e. from 11.06.2019 to till
realization of the full.
Distribution of Compensation
The claimant No.2 to 5 are equally entitled to get
compensation.
Protection Awarded Compensation
Sixty percent(60%) of the amount of compensation
of claimant No.2 to 5 are to be deposited for five
years and the rest amount are to released in their
favour in their bank account.
In case of necessity, the Tribunal can be approached
for withdrawal 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 the said judgment and award, the
present appeal is preferred.
8. I have heard both the sides at length and perused
the record of the Learned Tribunal below. It is the admitted
position that in the claim petition, the respondent-claimant
petitioners shown the age of the deceased as 49 years at the
time of filing the claim petition. Accordingly, PW-1, Rupan
Debnath i.e. the son of the deceased in his examination-in-
chief in affidavit in para No.4 specifically stated that at the time
of death his mother was 49 years old and she used to earn
Rs.12,000/- per month. The said PW-1 duly cross-examined by
the present appellant-Insurance Company but surprisingly the
appellant-Insurance Company at the time of cross-examination
of said PW-1 did not put a single question to him regarding age
of the deceased as 49 years. It is on record that in Exbt.-4/2
i.e. PM examination report, the age of the deceased was shown
as 50 years but on what basis the age was shown as 50 years
by the attending doctor at the time of submitting PM report that
could not be ascertained and on perusal of Exbt.-4/1 i.e.
forwarding report it appears that in the said forwarding report
the attending doctor mentioned the age of the deceased as 65
years but the Learned Tribunal below at the time of
determination of compensation determined the age of the
deceased as 50 years. In Sarla Verma(Smt) and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another dated
15.04.2009 reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein in para
No.42, Hon'ble the 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."
On perusal of the said paragraph it appears that
the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that
multiplier of 13 would be applicable if the age of the deceased is
in between 46 to 50 years. Here in this case if it is found that
the deceased was 49 years in that case multiplier would be 13
and if it is 50 years the same multiplier would also be applied.
9. In Exbt.-4/1 although the doctor at the time of
sending requisition to O/C mentioned the age of the deceased
as 65 years but in this regard in the considered opinion of the
Court, the same was mentioned without any specific reference
or base, so, no reliance can be placed upon that. In my
considered view, Learned Tribunal below rightly determined the
multiplier in the light of the aforesaid judgment as 13 and I find
no infirmity in the said observation of the Learned Tribunal
below.
10. Regarding monthly income of the deceased, the
Learned Tribunal below relied upon PM examination report and
determined the age of the deceased as 50 years at the time of
death although the respondent-claimant petitioners took the
plea that the deceased was 49 years. As already stated,
multiplier would be 13 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme of India in Sarla Verma(supra) both in respect of 49
or 50. Since the appellant before the Learned Tribunal below did
not challenge the age of the deceased at the time of death by
way of cross-examination or by their specific assertions in the
written statement so at this belated stage the said submission
cannot be accepted. Further as referred by Learned Counsel for
the appellant, the Learned Tribunal below at the time of
determination of compensation based upon the notification of
Labour Department, Government of Tripura determined the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,180/-(Rs.306/- per
dayx30 days) which in my considered view was justified and
rational. So, the plea taken by the appellant before the High
Court at the time of hearing of appeal in my considered view
cannot be accepted. Situated thus after going through the
judgment of the Learned Tribunal it appears that there was no
infirmity in the judgment delivered by Learned Tribunal below.
Hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company is dismissed being devoid of merit. The
judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 delivered by Learned
MAC Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case
No. TS(MAC)/125/2019 is hereby upheld and accordingly the
same is affirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company be asked
to deposit the award or compensation as ordered by the
Tribunal shortly.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this
judgment/award.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.05.30
17:58:16 -07'00'
Deepshikha
