Usha Rani Si @ Usha Si & ORS v. Nicl & ANR

S/L 12 26.7.2021 Court No.26 AD FMAT 176 of 2019 With IA No.:CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No.:CAN 2146 of 2019) (Via Video Conference) Usha Rani Si @ Usha Si & Ors.

Vs.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy ... for the Appellants/Claimants.

Mr. M.P. Chakraborty ... for the Respondent/Insurance Company.

IA No.:CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No.:CAN 2146 of 2019) Since the original application is not found in the file, the photostat copy of the application for condonation of delay is taken on record and the same is treated as original. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.

On perusal of the pleadings, this Court satisfied that cause shown for delay in filing of the appeal is sufficient and prayer for condonation of delay should be allowed. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands allowed.

FMAT No. 176 of 2019 On consent of the parties appeal is taken up for hearing. The appeal is against the judgment and award dated 18th June, 2018 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in MAC Case No. 28 of 2017 / MAC Case No.381 of

2012, on a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The fact of the case is that the legal heirs of victim are claiming compensation on account of death of Dipak Si, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 5th June, 2012. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy appearing on behalf of the appellants has mainly raised two points in the instant appeal. It is submitted on behalf of appellants that the monthly income of Rs.3000/- of the victim considered by the learned Judge was inadequate. However, claimants were not granted any amount under the heading of Future Prospect. Accordingly, Mr. Roy submits that the lesser quantum of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

Mr. M.P. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company argued that the Ld. Tribunal rightly accepted the income of Rs.3,000/- per month in absence of documentary evidence and there is no scope of interference of the appellate court at this stage.

Heard the submission of the parties, considering the judgments of Smt. Sarala Verma & Ors. -Vs.- Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited -Vs.- Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also following the precedence of this Court on the point of monthly income, I find substance in the arguments of the appellants. For the year 2012, in a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an

amount of Rs.4000/- per month does not appear to be exorbitant.

In my view, appellants are justified in praying for 40% addition on account of 'future prospect' on the income of the deceased along with total component of General Damages should be Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- as granted by the Court below. Accordingly, the impugned award is required to be modified and the claimants are found entitled to total amount of Rs.7,02,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of receipt of payment. In the light of the above observation, appellants are entitled to get such compensation with following manner: Particulars Amount Monthly Income Rs. 4,000/- Yearly income(x12) Rs. 48,000/- After Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 32,000/- 40% future prospect (32,000x40%) Rs.12,800/- Total annual loss of income Rs.

44,800/- Age 40 Multiplier 15 Rs. 6,72,000/- (44,800 x15) General damages Rs. 30,000/- Total compensation Rs. 7,02,000/- Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,75,000/- Payable Rs. 3,27,000/- The claimants are acknowledging receipt of sum of the entire awarded amount of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest. The balance sum of Rs.

centum from the date of filling of claim application till the date of payment within 45 days from the date receipt of the bank particular of the appellants, peremptorily . Learned Advocate for the appellants will forward the bank account details of the appellants within a fortnight from date to the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company. The payment shall be made by the insurance company to the appellants in the same manner and proportionate as indicated in tribunal award. With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected application, if any, is also disposed of.

The concerned Department is directed to tag the applications, if any, with the main appeal.

The Registry is directed to send down the lower court records at once, if received by this time.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities, on priority basis.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)