Rina Biswas & ANR v. The Branch Manager,Nicl & ANR
24.06.2021 ss F.M.A.T. 580 of 2019 I.A. No.1 of 2021 ( Via Video Conference ) Rina Biswas & ors.
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.
Mr. Muktakesh Das ...For the Appellants/claimants Mr. Rajesh Singh ... For the respondent/Insurance Co.
It appears to this Court that the instant appeal has been filed out of statutory period. Being satisfied with the cause for delay in filing the instant appeal and since leaned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company did not oppose, this Court condones the delay in filing the instant appeal.
The claimants are aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted by the tribunal in its award dated November 30, 2016 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in M.A.C. Case No. 176 of 2012, on a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one 'Pradip Biswas' in a road accident which took place on January 24, 2012.
Three points have been mainly raised by the claimants in the instant appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- of the victim considered for by the learned Judge was inadequate. Further, the claimants were not granted any amount under 'future prospect'. Lastly, the claimants
were given only Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.70,000/- being the full component of 'general damages'. Accordingly, it was argued that a lesser quantum of compensation has been erroneously awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering the judgements of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. 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.4,000/- per month does not appear to be exorbitant.
Similarly, appellants are justified in praying for 40% addition on account of 'future prospect' on the income of the deceased and they should also get Rs.70,000/- under collective heads of general damages. The appellants however admit that the correct multiplier of '14' should have been applied in place of '15' used by the learned Tribunal.
The impugned award is thus modified and the claimants are found entitled to a total amount of Rs.6,97,200/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the receipt of payment as indicated more fully hereafter.
Taking the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.4,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.48,000/-. By adding 40% future prospect it is Rs.67,200/-. Thereafter, upon deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses, it is the figure of Rs.44,800/- on which the multiplier of will have to be applied.
The net pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.6,27,200/-. The appellants are also entitled to general damages of Rs.70,000/- on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, taking the gross compensation to Rs.6,97,200/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the date of receipt of the amount.
The claimants acknowledge receipt of a sum of the entire awarded amount of Rs.3,69,500/- along with interest. The balance sum of Rs.3,27,700/- would become payable to the appellants together with interest assessed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim petition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the bank account particulars of the appellants. Advocate for the Appellants will forward the bank account details of the appellants within a fortnight from date to Advocate for the insurance company. The payment shall be made in the proportion decided by the Court below.
FMAT 580 of 2019 is disposed of.
There will 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 application, if any, with the main appeal.
LCR, if any may be returned back to the Court below.
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.)