Partly allowed

Smti. Lakhi Das and 3 Ors. v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Mar 2022MACApp./46/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court modified the quantum of compensation by adjusting the deceased's monthly income and removing a pocket money deduction, fixing the total award at Rs. 12,04,000/-. It directed significant portions of the amount be kept in fixed deposits for minor children.

What did the court decide?

Modified judgment awarding Rs. 12,04,000/- compensatory amount with interest; Rs. 3,00,000/- each for minor children and Rs. 1,00,000/- to maternal mother.

Smti. Lakhi Das and 3 Ors. Vs M/S United India… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010020282020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MACApp./46/2020

¶5

SMTI. LAKHI DAS AND 3 ORS (WIFE OF THE DECEASED), R/O- KALIPUR RIVER SIDE, KALIPUR, KAMAKHYA, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781009. 2: MISS RUMI DAS (DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED) R/O- KALIPUR RIVER SIDE KALIPUR KAMAKHYA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781009. 3: SRI SANKAR DAS (SON OF THE DECEASED) R/O- KALIPUR RIVER SIDE KALIPUR KAMAKHYA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781009.

¶6

4: SRI SHIVA DAS (SON OF THE DECEASED) AS THE APPELLANTS NOS 2 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS ARE REP HEREIN BY APPELLANT NO. 1 I.E. BY THEIR MOTHER. R/O- KALIPUR RIVER SIDE KALIPUR KAMAKHYA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶7

Page No.# 2/4

¶8

PIN- 781009

¶9

VERSUS M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR REGIONAL OFFICE, CHIBBER HOUSE, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST.KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781005.

¶10

2:SRI PABIN MAHANTA FATHER OF LATE JISHNU KUMAR MAHANTA (DRIVER) R/O- KAMAKHYA GATE WEST DURGASAROVAR P.S. BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781009

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 07-03-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶17

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 30.10.2019 passed by the MACT No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2980/2016.

¶18

On 21.02.2016 at about 11.50 p.m. while the deceased was crossing the road, he was hit by motor cycle bearing Regd. AS-01-BU-2930. As a result of the accident, the deceased lost his life. Therefore, his wife, two children and his mother jointly filed a claim petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 seeking compensation.

¶19

The respondent/insurance company contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. The respondent denied the pleadings of the appellant that the

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a carpenter is baseless. The respondent also denied the involvement of the motor cycle bearing Regd. AS-01-BP2930.

¶22

The tribunal did not frame any issues. The appellant examined one witness and the respondent/claimant examined one witness. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.11,40,000/-.

¶23

The only reason for filing this appeal by the appellant is that without any basis the tribunal had notionally held the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-. According to the appellant, the deceased was a self employed carpenter. Therefore, there cannot be any question for filing any document to prove the income. The appellant also pointed out that an amount Rs.500/- was deducted from the notional income of the deceased on account of pocket money expenses.

¶24

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

¶25

Under the given circumstances of the case, this Court has reasoned to agree with the tribunal so far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned but this Court is not agree with the tribunal when Rs.500/- was deducted from the yearly income of the deceased on account of pocket money expenses. According to Sarla Verma reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the tribunal has correctly held the multiplicand to be 15.

¶26

Therefore, the impugned judgment deserved to be modified as under-

¶27

Annual income Rs.72,000/-

¶28

40% future prospect Rs.28,800/-

¶29

Total-Rs,1,00,800/-

¶30

¼ is deducted- Rs.75,600/-X15= 11,34,000/-

¶31

Consortium, funeral expenses etc.=Rs.70,000/-

¶32

Total-Rs.12,04,000/-

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified. The appellant is entitled to Rs.12,04,000/-. The compensation shall carry interest as directed by the tribunal. There are two minor children left behind the deceased. Therefore, Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be kept fixed deposited in a bank in the name of the minors till they would attain majority. If any of them has attained majority by now, the aforesaid direction shall not be application for him/her. The mother of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total compensation. The remaining compensation amount shall be given to claimant Smti. Lakhi Das.

¶35

Return the LCR.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Lakhi Das and 3 Ors. v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Lakhi Das and 3 Ors. v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 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

Md. Jafor Iqbal Hoque @ Jafar Iqbal Haque and Anr. Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Palash Mazumdar and 3 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nibedita Bhattacharyya and 4 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs MD Moidul Islam and 5 Ors.

Sri Hritokesh Patgiri Vs Sri Navin Hirania and 2 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Narah @ Sanju Narah and 2 Ors.