Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Kanchi Missong and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jul 2018MACApp./394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the insurer's appeal regarding compensation quantum. The court recalculated the award using a multiplier of 18 and deducting 50% for personal expenses, fixing liability at Rs. 3,90,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 3,90,000 plus 6% interest payable by the appellant with adjustments for statutory deposits allowed.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Kanchi… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010003312015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 394/2018

¶5

1:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶6

A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SMTI KANCHI MISSONG and 3 ORS W/O SRI GOJEN MISSONG

¶9

2:GOJEN MISSONG S/O SRI BAPUTI MISSONG BOTH ARE R/O VILL. PANBARI MISSING GAON P.O. BORJURI P.S. BOKAKHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶10

3:M/S CARRIERS INDIA PVT. LTD. RATHI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI 781005 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶11

4:DHAN MANI DEKA S/O SRI KANAK DEKA VILL. JAKUWAPARA P.O. HAZARIKAPARA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶15

Advocate for the appellant : Mrs. R. D. Mozumdar Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. I.A. Talukdar

¶16

Date of hearing and Order : 09.07.2018

¶17

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mrs. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2/Claimants.

¶19

2 . This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 29/2010, filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶20

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that in view of the nature of grounds taken in the appeal, the dispute is with regard to the calculation of the quantum of compensation and he prays that the matter be heard and finally disposed of as it is only the arithmetical calculation that has to be examined by this Court.

¶21

4 . In view of the said submissions, the appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the issuance of notices on the respondents No. 3 and 4 is dismissed with.

¶22

5 . The brief facts of the case is that on 24.12.2009, at about 3.00 A.M., the son of the respondents No. 1 and 2 namely, Gobin Missong was travelling from Guwahati to Silchar in a truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-S/4494 as a helper/handyman engaged in the said truck. At a place named Jaiaw Langsning Road, NH-40 under East Khasi Hills, suddenly, the left side door of the truck opened while taking a turning. As a result, the deceased fell down

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

on the road and had sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. At the time of the death, he was 22 years and was a bachelor, having income of Rs.5,000/- p.m. (inclusive of allowance).

¶25

6 . Denying the liability, the present appellant filed the written statement and on the basis of the pleadings, the learned tribunal had framed the following three issues for trial:-

¶26

Whether the claim petition is maintainable under the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Amended)?

¶27

Whether the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 24.12.2009 involving vehicle No. AS-01-S/4494 (Truck)?

¶28

Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation ? If so, what would be the amount of compensation and from whom?

¶29

7 . The respondent No. 1 examined herself as PW 1 and had exhibited four documents being (i) Accident Report (Ext.1), (ii) Medical Certificate of cause of death (Ext.2), (iii) Provisional Death Certificate (Ext. 3), (iv) Police Report dated 25.12.2009 (Ext. 4).

¶30

8 . As regards issue No. 1, the learned tribunal had held the same in the affirmative. In respect of the issues No. 2 and 3, the learned tribunal accepted that the age of the deceased was 22 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, on the basis of the age of the mother, multiplier of 13 was applied and as the cap of income in an application under Section 163-A was Rs.40,000/- per month, the compensation was calculated as Rs.40,000/- X 13 = Rs.5,20,000/-. Moreover, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were held to be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- and loss of estate earning to Rs.2,500/- and accordingly, a total of Rs.5,24,500/- along with 6% interest was fixed from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award was granted to the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶31

9 . The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income is required to be deducted on account of personal living expenses. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107, it is submitted that the applicable multiplier would be the age of the deceased and therefore,

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

the applicable multiplier will be 18.

¶34

10 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that as per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) where the applicable multiplier is held to be 18, on the basis of the said decision, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and therefore, he submits that on the basis of the aforesaid decisions, the final award may be drawn up in this appeal.

¶35

11 . Considering these submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides, it appears that the learned tribunal did not deduct the personal and living expenses from the income of the deceased, which has been standardise to be 50% in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has been upheld in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Moreover, the applicable multiplier would be 18 on the basis of the age of the deceased. Therefore, it appears that the compensation is required to be recast in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the calculation of compensation is done as follows:-

¶36

(i) Annual income under Section 163-A of the MV Act = Rs.40,000/(ii) Deduct 50% on account of personal and living expenses (iii) Applicable multiplier = 18 (iv) Compensation = Rs.20,000/- X 18 = Rs.3,60,000/(v) Add on account of funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- (vi) Add on account of loss of estate = Rs.15,000/Total = Rs.3,90,000/(Rupees Three lakh Ninety Thousand only)

¶37

12. Therefore, the compensation is scaled down on Rs.3,90,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today along with 6% interest as per the award. The appellant is entitled to adjustment of any money paid and/or deposited on account of compensation, or no fault liability, as well as statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made before the Registry of this Court. On such deposit being made, the Registry may permit the respondents No. 1 and 2 to withdraw the same being duly identified by Mr. I. A. Talukdar, their learned counsel.

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

13 . The appeal, therefore, stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Kanchi Missong and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Kanchi Missong and 3 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

Kritik Ranjan Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Kritik Ranjan Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Suchitra Talukdar Vs the State of Assam

Phulmai Deka @ Pulmai Deka Vs Rajen Chandra Neog

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti Muthi Basumatary and 3 Ors.

M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Renu Saikia and Anr.