Allowed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Sika Englengpi and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Feb 2020MACApp./565/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging future prospects and interest awarded by the MACT in a motor accident claim. The court held that the deceased government servant was entitled to 15% future prospects and awarded interest only on the base compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded at Rs.13,76,464 with 6% interest from filing date; no interest on future prospects; order modified.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Sika Englengpi and 4 Ors. — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010002262015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MACApp. 565/2019

¶5

1:ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 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:SMT SIKA ENGLENGPI and 4 ORS

¶9

W/O LATE SING TIMUNG, R/O MENTILA, PHEKOLANGSO, MENHANSEGAON, P.S. DIPHU, DIST .KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN 782460

¶10

2:JEN SINGH TIMUNG S/O LATE SING TIMUNG

¶11

3:SMT. KAKA TIMUNGPI D/O LATE SING TIMUNG ALL ARE R/O MENTILA PHEKOLANGSO, MENHANSEGAON P.S. DIPHU, DIST .KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM, PIN 782460

¶12

4:MR. HAR SING ENGLENG S/O LATE BURA SING ENGLENG R/O DENGAON, P.S. DOKMOKA DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN 782441

¶13

5:RABIN CH. BORO S/O SRI KULEN BORO R/O KACHUPUKHURI P.S. HOWRAHGHAT, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM, PIN 78248

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DUTTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A BARUAH (R 1-3)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

06-02-2020

¶21

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶22

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12.05.2015 passed by the MACT No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 18/2011, by which an amount of Rs.13,76,464 has been awarded to the respondents/claimants.

¶23

The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.12.2010, when an auto rickshaw in which he was travelling was hit by a speeding bus. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed and the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation, as stated above to the respondents/claimants.

¶24

Mr. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has made a challenge to the impugned judgment and award on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the percentage of the income of the deceased at 15% while calculating future prospects. She submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a person who is above 50 years above and who is a government servant is not entitled to payment of future prospects. She also submits that in the case of Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, a person who is having a permanent Government job and is above 50 years of age is not entitled to any future prospects. Second ground of challenge made by the appellant, to the impugned judgment and award, is on the ground that no interest can be given in respect of future prospects.

¶25

Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and others,

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, a Government servant is entitled to payment of future prospects as per paragraph 61(iii). She however fairly submits that there can be no interest on the future prospects as per the various decisions of this Court.

¶28

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶29

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi and Ors , (supra) while considering payment of future prospects, has held in paragraph 61 (2) that the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh (supra) is not a binding precedent and has held in paragraph 61(iii) that when the deceased had a permanent job and his age was between 50 to 60 years, future prospects should be calculated by adding 15% of the actual salary. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity with decision of the learned Tribunal in calculating future prospects @ 15 % of the income of the deceased, who was 55 years of age at the time of his death and was working in the Government.

¶30

This Court, in various judgments has held that there can be no interest on future prospects, one of them being the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smti. Champabati Ray & 5 Ors., wherein this Court disposed of MAC Appeal No. 378/2017 vide judgment and order dated 01.10.2019, holding that there cannot be any interest on future prospects.

¶31

In view of above reasons, the compensation payable to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3/claimants shall be Rs.13,76,464 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till final payment. However, it is reiterated that there shall be no interest payable on the future prospects.

¶32

Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the MACT No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 18/2011 is modified to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, minus the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 6 (six) weeks’ with the learned Tribunal. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- shall be released back to the Appellant.

¶33

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Sika Englengpi and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Sika Englengpi 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

Mrinalee Bhuyan Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Habia Khatun Vs Hasen Ali

Smti. Sukla Deb and 3 Ors. Vs Sri Ranjit Deb Roy

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Bharati Devi and 4 Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Minati Saikia and 6 Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Minati Saikia and 6 Ors.