Allowed

Rojidan Khatoon and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Calcutta HC5 Sept 2023FMAT/12/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident case. Applying Pranay Sethi principles, the court added future prospects and general damages, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 13,07,464/- along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,07,464/- plus 6% interest from date of claim filing; insurer to transfer one-third share via NEFT.

Rojidan Khatoon and Ors. Vs National Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

48 05.9.2023 Ct. 3 SB

¶2

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

FMAT 12 of 2021

¶4

In the Matter of : Rojidan Khatoon & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Subir Banerjee … for the appellants

¶6

Ms. Supriya Singh…. for the opposite party.

¶7

Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Singh learned counsel representing the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶8

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 16.04.2019 passed by learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 233 of 2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶9

Briefly stated that on 17.5.2018 at about 10:30 AM Jamshed Ali son of Rojidan Khatoon aged about 27 years while proceeding towards Gayerkata by a motor cycle, he was dashed by a Tata Indica Motor Car registered as WB-72C2515 near Sangam Hotel, P.S. – Birpara and succumbed to the injuries caused due to such road traffic accident. The legal representatives of this victim filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. Learned Judge of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on record was pleased to fix the monthly income of the victim at Rs.6,500/- which comes to Rs.

¶10

¶11

78,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd from the said income towards his personal expenditure and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,45,500/- as compensation.

¶12

It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that learned Trial Court did not consider the settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and did not consider the loss of future prospect, which should have been 40% of the monthly income of the deceased in this case as he was 27 years old which comes around Rs. 2,600/- per month. Learned Tribunal did not consider the general damages to be awarded to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- while passing the judgment impugned learned Tribunal instead awarded Rs. 9,500/-.

¶13

Ms. Singh leaned counsel representing the insurer, however, disputes the monthly income of the deceased could not have fixed in absence of any evidence at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal ought to have fixed notional income @ Rs.5,000/-. It is further adverted that in consonance with the judgment used 16 as a multiplier while according to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport, reported in (2003) AIR SC 700 correct multiplier ought to have been 17 instead of 18.

¶14

Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant does not oppose Ms. Singh. However, it is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, and correctly that in absence of any appeal, cross-

¶15

¶16

appeal, it is to be presumed that insurer has accepted the quantum of monthly income of the victim, so fixed by learned Judge of the Tribunal.

¶17

When I consider the appeal in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find reason to hold that the impugned judgement warrants interference. The award should be enhanced incorporating future prospect and general damages in the following manner.

¶18

The calculation is given below:-

¶19

Rojidan Khatoon & Ors.

¶20

-Versus-

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

¶22

Income per month	Rs.	6,500.00
Add : Future Prospect 40%	Rs.	2,600.00
(Age 27 years)	____	___________
Less : Deduction 1/3^rd	Rs. Rs.	9,100.00 3,034.00
	____ Rs.	___________ 6,600.00
Annual Income		x 12
	____ Rs.	___________ 72,792.00
Multiplier - 17 (age 27 years)		x 17
	____ Rs.	___________ 12,37,464.00
Add: General Damages	Rs.	70,000.00
	____ Rs.	_____________ 13,07,464.00
Award of Learned Tribunal	Rs.	9,45,500.00
	____ R	_____________ s. 3,61,964.00

¶23

with Interest @ 6% p.a. from

¶24

date of filing of claim application i.e on 11.06.2018 till the date of payment.

¶25

The award granted by the learned MACC Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 9,45,500/- is enhanced to Rs.13,07,464/- .

¶26

It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum. The said rate of interest

¶27

¶28

should also be awarded in respect of the enhanced amount of Rs.3,61,964/- from the date of filing of the application till the payment is made.

¶29

Ms. Singh submits that rate of interest may be given from the date of filing of appeal but I do not find any reason to accede to the submission made by Ms. Singh.

¶30

Since the widow of the victim has not been given the share of compensation, by the learned Tribunal this enhanced amount together with interest shall be given to the widow of appellant no.1.

¶31

The insurer shall transfer the 1/3^rd of the awarded amount to the bank account of each of the appellants through NEFT. Appellants to furnish back account details to the Respondent within two weeks.

¶32

The bank manager shall keep the money awarded to Jasmine Khatoon in the form of Fixed Deposit in the name of Jasmine Khatoon. Under no circumstances the account shall be in the joint name with anyone else, if she is not minor. If she is found to be minor, then mother shall join as natural guardian.

¶33

The appeal, is thus, disposed of.

¶34

Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned

¶35

Tribunal for information and necessary action.

¶36

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Rojidan Khatoon and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rojidan Khatoon and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemanta Barman Vs State of West Bengal

Subrata Biswas and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Rita Devi Yadav and Ors. Vs South Bengal State Transport Corporation

Maria Goreti Bara and Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Dabaral Alias Prasad and Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Reena Tamang @ Nangsang Tamang and Anr. Vs Sikha Subba and Anr.