Pramila Thakuria Vs the Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. a

2. The case of the appellant is that by judgment and award dated 20.12.2013, the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant herein was allowed by the Member, MACT, Lakhimpur, in MAC case no. 33/2022, whereby compensation of Rs. 7,29,500/- was awarded to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favor of the claimant/appellant for the death of the deceased, Jantu Thakuria, due to a road traffic accident on 31.03.2012 at Bhangabeel near Boginadi Railway Bridge. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking an enhancement of the awarded

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

amount. According to the appellant, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects on income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of spousal consortium, and loss of parental consortium for the three children, which are entitled to the claimants/appellants.

¶29

3. The fact leading to the filing of this appeal is that on 31.03.2012, the husband of the claimant, late Jantu Thakuria, was proceeding from Boginadi towards Bhangabeel by driving a tractor bearing registration no. AS.07.C/2710. When he reached near Bhangabeel, his tractor capsized from the road due to the filling of new earth by the side of the road. As a result, the deceased fell down from the tractor, and the tractor immediately crushed him, causing his instant death.

¶30

4. The claimant filed the claim petition as MAC case no. 33/2012 before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation for the death of her husband due to a vehicular accident. The claim petition was contested. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal disposed of the claim petition on 20.12.2013, directing the respondent insurance company to pay an awarded amount of Rs. 7,29,500/- to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶31

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant clarified that the fact of the case in MAC case no. 33/2012 is not disputed. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, as it failed to include the future prospects of the deceased and did not grant any compensation for non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate, and no award was made for loss of love and affection. Furthermore, the amounts granted are

¶32

Page No.# 4/7

¶33

much less and on the lower side. The learned counsel also contended that the deceased had four dependents; therefore, the personal deduction should have been 1/4th, not 1/3rd, as applied by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimant has filed this appeal for an increase in the compensation amount.

¶34

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant is entitled to future prospects as per applicable legal principles laid in Sidram Vs.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd And Anr; reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968] , and since the deceased was about 27 years old at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 5,000 per month, the claimant should be entitled to 40% future prospects. This is in line with the relevant legal standards set in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi reported in [2017 (16) SCC 680]. The learned counsel also fairly admitted that, given the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier should be 17, not 18, as considered by the Tribunal.

¶35

7. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, acknowledged that the deceased’s income was Rs. 5,000 per month, and he was approximately 27 years old at the time of his death. He agreed that the amounts awarded under various heads are on the lower side and that the respondent has no objection to the enhancement of these amounts. Additionally, the respondent concedes that the claimant is entitled to 40% future prospects but is not entitled to interest on this future prospect component. The respondent also agreed that the multiplier should be 17, not 18, as used by the Tribunal. At this stage, the appellant’s counsel agreed not to press for

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

interest on the future prospects.

¶38

8. The respondent’s counsel further submitted that, as per the order dated 16.03.2023, in IA(C)/3236/2022, the appellant shall not be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% from 15.03.2020 to 28.08.2022, which the appellant’s counsel fairly admitted, noting that interest for this period has been waived as per the order.

¶39

9. I have heard both parties’ counsel, considered the evidence on record, and reviewed the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶40

10. During the hearing, both counsels agreed that the parties have reached a consensus regarding the enhancement of certain heads of compensation, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of spousal consortium, and loss of parental consortium for three children. They also agreed that the claimant is entitled to 40% future income, but without interest on this component. The agreed and calculated enhanced compensation, signed by both parties’ counsel, has been placed on record and marked as document ‘X’.

¶41

11. Since the parties have conscientiously agreed on these points, the claimant shall be entitled to 40% of future income without interest, the multiplier shall be 17 instead of 18, and the amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of spousal consortium, and loss of parental consortium shall be increased accordingly.

¶42

12. Based on the mutual agreement and the calculations submitted, the court has prepared the following award amount:

¶43

-Monthly income: Rs. 5,000

¶44

Page No.# 6/7

¶45

-Annual income: Rs. 60,000 -Future prospects (40%): Rs. 24,000

¶46

-Total annual income including future prospects: Rs. 84,000 -Less 1/4th personal deduction: Rs. 21,000 -Net annual income: Rs. 63,000 -Multiplier: 17 -Total loss of income: Rs. 10,71,000

¶47

Conventional		heads :
-Loss of	estate:	Rs.	15,000
-Funeral	expenses:	Rs.	15,000
-Loss of	spousal cons	ortium:	Rs. 40,000

¶48

-Loss of parental consortium for three children: Rs. 1,20,000

¶49

(Rs.40,000each)

¶50

Total compensation: Rs. 10,71,000 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 1,20,000 = Rs. 12,61,000.

¶51

13. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, with the exception of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.08.2022, for which interest is waived. The claimant shall not be entitled to interest on the 40% future prospects component.

¶52

14. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 shall be modified to the extent indicated above.

¶53

15. The respondent, Oriental Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the remaining enhanced compensation amount along with

¶54

Page No.# 7/7

¶55

accrued interest up to date before the learned Tribunal at North Lakhimpur within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The amount shall be paid to the claimant upon proper identification, in accordance with the Tribunal’s judgment dated 20.12.2013.

¶56

16. The appeal is allowed to the extent specified above and is disposed of.

¶57

17. Return the record.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Pramila Thakuria v. the Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Thakuria v. the Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ijzaz Rohan, Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Union of India Vs M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Lalbhanu Nessa and 2 Ors. Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Nava Kumar Bora Vs Smti Geeti Bora

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mitali Dey and 3 Ors. H