Partly allowed

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Dipali Das and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Mar 2018MACApp./144/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a fatal road accident. The High Court held that the split multiplier principle was no longer applicable after Supreme Court rulings. It approved the 15% future prospects addition but disallowed interest on that specific amount and scaled down conventional heads to Pranay Sethi standards.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was modified; conventional heads scaled down; interest disallowed on future prospects enhancement; appeal partly allowed.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Dipali Das and… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010113042016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 144/2016

¶5

1:ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶6

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A 25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SMTI DIPALI DAS and 4 ORS W/O LATE DURLAV CH. DAS

¶9

2:MISS SIMPI DAS D/O LATE DURLAV CH. DAS

¶10

3:MISS ARUNDHITA DAS D/O LATE DURLAV CH. DAS ALL ARE R/O PUB-GOTANAGAR PADUMBARI KAKUL PATH P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶11

4:M/S RANKY ENVIRO ENGINEERING LTD. C/O GUWAHATI WASTE MANAGEMENT CP. P LTD. OPP. DONA PLANET GUWAHATI 781005

¶12

5:MOTINDRA SINGH RABHA S/O LATE SADANANDA RABHA R/O PUB-KHAGRABARI P.O. JALANGHAT DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/8

¶14

Advocates for the petitioner :	Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sidhant Dutta, Mr. C. Sharma, Ms. N. Modi.
Advocates for respondents No.1 to 3:	Mr. T. Islam, Ms. S. Parbin, Mr. Z. Iqbal.
Advocates for Respondent No.4 :	None appears.
Advocates for Respondent No.5 :	Mr. K. M. Haloi, Ms. J. Choudhury, Mr. A.K. Deka, Mr. D. Chakrabarty.

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Date : 15-03-2018

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. Islam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. K. Deka, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5. No one appears on call for the respondent No. 4.

¶20

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.03.2015, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 2386 of 2012.

¶21

The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, are the claimants in MAC Case No. 2386/12. In the claim petition it was stated that on 26.11.2012, Durlav Chandra Das (the deceased) was riding his scooter bearing registration no. As-01-AP-8699. At Maligaon Gate No.1, the offending truck bearing registration no. AS-01-BC-2963 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and knocked down the deceased from behind. As a result of the accident, he had suffered grievous injuries. He was shifted to GMCH, Guwahati for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of his death, the age of the deceased was 56 years and he was working as CCC (Chief Coaching Clerk) in the Railways and it was stated that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.37,654/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four only). The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the wife and the daughters of the deceased, had filed their claim petition and had prayed for a compensation of Rs.50.00 lakh.

¶22

The respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending truck did not

¶23

Page No.# 3/8

¶24

contest the claim. However, the appellant, i.e. the insurer of the offending vehicle had contested the claim by filing their written statement, wherein by taking all the usual pleas, the appellant denied its liability to pay any compensation to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. The claim was also assailed on the ground that it was excessive.

¶25

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed for trial:

¶26

i. Whether the death was caused to the deceased Durlav Ch. Das on the relevant day of accident on 26-11-2012 due to hitting by the vehicle bearing Regd. No. AS01-BC-2963 (Truck)?

¶27

ii. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle-in question?

¶28

iii. Whether the insurance policy was valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident?

¶29

The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 examined the respondent No. 1 as PW-1. She had proved the following documents:

¶30

i. Accident Information Report (Ext.1),

¶31

ii. Post mortem examination Report (Ext.2), iii. Copy of FIR (Ext.3),

¶32

iv. Salary Certificate (Ext.4),

¶33

v. Identity Card (Ext.5).

¶34

The respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 had also examined one Hari Deka (PW-2) and one Salil Sen Gupta (PW-3). PW-3 had proved the service book of the deceased (Ext.6).

¶35

The learned Tribunal had decided all the issues together. On the basis of the evidence on record, and by relying on the evidence of PW-2, who was the eye witness, it was held that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident by hitting the deceased from behind. The learned Tribunal relied on the Post Mortem Report (Ext.2). By relying on the service record (Ext.-6), it was held that the deceased had died at the age of 56 years and by applying a ratio case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was held that the applicable multiplier would be 9.

¶36

By relying on the salary certificate (Ext.4), the gross monthly salary of the deceased was held to be Rs.37,654/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand six hundred and fifty four only). A sum of Rs.208/- (Rupees Two hundred and eight only) was deducted as Professional Tax and the net salary of the deceased was held to be Rs.37,446/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand four

¶37

Page No.# 4/8

¶38

hundred and forty six only). By applying the ratio of the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013) ACJ 1403, income of 15% was added on account of future prospects. 1/3rd of the salary was deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and therefore, the compensation was computed as follows:

¶39

Total monthly salary :Rs.37,654.00
Less Professional Tax :Rs.208.00
Total :Rs.37,446.00
Total Annual Salary (Rs.37,446/- x 2) :Rs.4,49,352.00
Salary minus standard I.T. deductions:
(Rs.4,49,352/- – Rs.1,80,000/-) : Rs.2,69,352.00
Income Tax 10% :Rs.26,935.20
Total Annual Salary (Rs.37,446/- x12) :Rs.4,49,352.00
Less Income Tax :Rs.26,935.20 : Rs.4,22,416.80
Add 15% :Rs.63,362.52 : Rs.4,85,779.32
Less 1/3^rd(Rs.4,85,779.32 ÷ 3 x 2) :Rs.1,61,926.44
Total : Rs.3,23,852.88
Multiplier : 9
Total loss of dependency
(Rs.3,23,852.88 x 9) : Rs.29,14,675.92
Add: Funeral Expense : Rs.25,000.00
Add: Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,00,000.00
Add: Loss of estate : Rs.5,000.00
Add: Transportation of body :Rs.5,000.00
Total :Rs.30,49,700.00

¶40

Thus, the award of Rs.30,49,700/- (Rupees Thirty lakh forty nine thousand and seven hundred only) was directed to be paid to the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. the claimants

¶41

Page No.# 5/8

¶42

with interest at the rate of 6% on and from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellant, by pressing all the grounds for the appeal, has specifically submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 56 years. He would have otherwise retired at the age of 60 years. Therefore, prior to his retirement he would have received his full salary, but after the date of his retirement, the family would be entitled to pension and, as such, the loss of dependency would come down to the extent of the pension, which the family of the deceased would have otherwise received, and therefore, it is submitted that this is a case where spilt multiplier should be applied, one for the period prior to the normal date of retirement and the other multiplier for the post retirement period. It is also submitted that in the event this court is inclined to enhance any income considering the future prospect, the respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 would not be entitled to any interest on such enhanced income and therefore, interest was required to be disallowed on the compensation payable on account of future prospects, if such a relief is at all granted.

¶44

It is further submitted that the issue of additional compensation on account of other conventional heads like (i) funeral expenses, (ii) loss of consortium, and (iii) loss of estate, has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. MANU/SC/1366/2017: (2017) 8 Supreme 107, and it is submitted that this court is required to follow the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶45

The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 has made his submissions in support of the judgment. He has opposed the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant on the application of spilt multiplier in this case. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as well as Pranay Sethi (supra) had settled the issue of the applicable multiplier and, as such, there was no scope of applying spilt multiplier as per the judgment passed by this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gunamani Bora, (2009) 5 GLR 282: 2008 (3) GLT 733.

¶46

It is submitted that the principle of split multiplier was first applied by this court in the case of Gunamani Bora and Ors. (supra). However, in view of the subsequent decision of the

¶47

Page No.# 6/8

¶48

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), The decision of this court in the case of Gunamoni Bora (supra) must be held to be prospectively overruled. The learned Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 with his usual fairness has submitted that in so far as the additions on account of conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate is concerned, this court may be bound by the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). However, it is submitted that in the present case, as the victim had died prior to the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) this court may not interfere with the compensation granted on account of the conventional heads.

¶49

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for both sides, the only question is to be decided is - Whether the impugned judgment or award is liable to be interfered with on account of (i) failure to apply split multiplier, (ii) on account of non- awarding of interest on the enhanced award, and (iii) quantification of compensation on account of conventional heads?

¶50

It appears from the argument made by the learned Counsel of both sides that there is no dispute as regards the death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle insured by the appellant. There is also no dispute as regards the monthly income and the age of the deceased. In so far as the enhancement of income on account of future prospects is concerned, it appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) had laid down the ratio in paragraph 61(iii) that in case the deceased was at the age of 50-60 years, addition for future prospects should be 15%. Therefore, in the present case, it is held that the respondent No. 1 to 3 were entitled to enhancement of the income of the deceased on account of future prospects which as per the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is held to be 15% (for age group of 50-60 years). In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it has been held that actual salary should be read as salary less tax. Thus, there appears to be no scope for enhancing the award on the ground of any error in computing addition of income on account of future prospects as the enhancement was done at the rate of 15%.

¶51

In respect of the application of split multiplier, while the said principle was applied in the case of Gunamoni Bora (supra), but the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as well as in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), had fixed and/or standardized the rates of applicable multipliers. Therefore, if a split multiplier principle is applied in the present case

¶52

Page No.# 7/8

¶53

in hand, it would be contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). Hence, it appears to this Court that it is bound by the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra) and, as such, the principle laid down in the case of Gunamoni Bora (supra) cannot be applied, as it would run counter to the principle of standardization of multiplier as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶54

However, in so far as the issue of interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, the said issue has been settled by this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulochana Devi & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 96/2009, decided on 23.04.2014, wherein interest was not allowed on addition of future prospects. This court is bound by the ratio laid down in the said case and therefore, interest is disallowed on the addition of income on account of future prospects.

¶55

As regards the additions under conventional heads are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down in paragraph 61(viii) of the said judgment that reasonable figures on conventional heads, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/-respectively. In this connection, this court is of the view that as the present appeal is decided today, this court is bound to apply the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra) and this court cannot take a contrary view and therefore, the compensation of conventional heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal is scaled down to be in consonance with the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that as in this case the award was passed prior to the decision rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the award already passed not to be interfered with cannot be acceded to.

¶56

Therefore, in view of the discussions above, this appeal stands appeal partly allowed to the extent as indicated above and the impugned judgment and award stands modified as below:

¶57

Annual salary

¶58

(less income tax and professional tax as per award) = Rs.4,22,416.80

¶59

Page No.# 8/8

¶60

Add: on account of future prospects @ 15% = Rs. 63,362.40 3. Total = Rs.4,85,777.20 4. Less (¹ /3rd income on account of personal expenses) = Rs.1,61,926.40 5. Total = Rs.3,23,852.80 6. Total loss of dependency (Rs.3,23,852.20 X 9 = Rs.29,14,675.20 rounded-up)= Rs.29,14,675/7. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/8. Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000/9. Loss of Estate = Rs. 15,000/- 10. Total = Rs.29,84,675/-

¶61

Therefore, the award would now stand modified and scaled down to Rs.29,846,75/(Rupees Twenty nine lakh eighty four thousand six hundred and seventy five only). Interest shall not be payable on the enhancement made on account of future prospects amounting to Rs.1,61,926.40 (Rupees One lakh sixty one thousand nine hundred twenty six and paise forty only). However, the balance award shall continue to carry interest as per award.

¶62

Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit the awarded sum and interest after adjusting the amount paid against (i) no fault liability, (ii) statutory deposit, and (iii) part of award deposited by them. Such balance amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of one month from today, failing which the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 shall be entitled to enforce the award.

¶63

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent as indicated above and the impugned and award dated 09.03.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati stand modified accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own cost for this appeal.

¶64

Let the LCR be returned back.

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

Comparing Assistant

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Dipali Das and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Dipali Das and 4 Ors.

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

Tomina Begum Deka Vs Jatin Duarah

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mustt. Renuja Begum Mazumder@ Renuja Begum Laskar and Ors.

Nagina Devi Jain Nahar Vs Union of India

Anowara Begum and 2 Ors. Vs Abdul Khalique and Anr.

M/S.Hills Trade Agencies, Vs Union of India and Anr.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smti Biju Das and 4 Ors.