Allowed

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

Calcutta HC5 Sept 2023FMAT/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident death case. The court applied the Pranay Sethi formula to increase the award from Rs. 6,09,500 to Rs. 8,57,500 while rejecting the insurer's objection regarding the interest calculation period.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to Rs. 8,57,500 with interest at 6% p.a. from 11.06.2018; insurer to transfer one-fourth share via NEFT within 15 days.

Rajendra Prasad Dabaral Alias Prasad and Ors. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

49 05.9.2023 Ct. 3 SB

¶2

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

FMAT 14 of 2021

¶4

In the Matter of : Rajendra Prasad Dabaral @ Prasad & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Subir Banerjee … for the appellants Ms. Supriya Singh…. for the opposite party.

¶6

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

¶7

Challenge in this appeal to the judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 passed by learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 232 of 2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶8

Briefly stated that on 17.5.2018 at about 10:30 AM Ms. Rima Biswakarma, while going down the road as a pillion rider towards Gairkata, the motor cycle was dashed by a Tata Indica registered as WB-72C-2515 near Sangam Hotel, P.S. – Birpara she was taken to hospital as she sustained injuries and she 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

¶9

¶10

Rs.5,000/- which comes to Rs. 60,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/4^th from the said income towards his personal expenditure and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,09,500/- as compensation.

¶11

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 25% of the monthly income of the deceased in this case as he was 43 years old which comes around Rs. 1250/- 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/-.

¶12

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 14 instead of 15.

¶13

Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant does not oppose Ms. Singh. However, it I submitted by Mr.

¶14

¶15

Banerjee, and correctly that in absence of any appeal, crossappeal, 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.

¶16

When considered 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 in the following manner.

¶17

The calculation is given below:-

¶18

Rajendra Prasad Dabaral @ Prasad & Ors.

¶19

-Versus-

¶20

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

¶21

Income per month	Rs.	5000.00
Add : Future Prospect 40%	Rs.	1250.00
(Age 27 years)	____	___________
Less : Deduction 1/4^th	Rs. Rs.	6250.00 1562.50
	____ Rs.	___________ 4687.00
Annual Income		x 12
	____ Rs.	___________ 56,250.00
Multiplier - 14 (age 43 years)		x 14
	____ Rs.	___________ 7,87,500.00
Add: General Damages	Rs.	70,000.00
	____ Rs.	_____________ 8,57,500.00
Award of Learned Tribunal	Rs.	6,09,500.00
	____ R	_____________ s. 2,48,000.00

¶22

with Interest @ 6% p.a. from

¶23

date of filing of claim application

¶24

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. 6,09,500/- is enhanced to Rs.8,57,500/- .

¶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.2,48,000/- 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

The insurer shall transfer the 1/4^th of the awarded amount to the bank accounts of the appellants through NEFT. If the minor daughter is not having an account, the father shall receive the amount, as natural guardian of the minor and deposit the money in the form of Fixed Deposit in the name of Barsha Biswakarma, under no circumstances the account shall be in the joint name.

¶31

The appellants shall provide the accounts details to the respondent insurer within 15 days hence.

¶32

The appeal, is thus, disposed of.

¶33

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

¶34

Tribunal for information and necessary action.

¶35

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Dabaral Alias Prasad 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.

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

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