Appeal against a motor accident compensation award was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court held that the Tribunal correctly assessed income based on lack of documentary evidence and did not commit impropriety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MACA NO.276 of 2014
07.10.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the judgment/award dated 1
7.12.2013, passed by the learned 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, in MAC Case No.1
31 of 2013/667 of 2006, awarding an amount of Rs.4,18,000/- as compensation, along with intere
st @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, till payment.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that as the deceased was below th
e age of 40 years at the time of his accidental death and was a business man, learned Tribunal
erred in not adding 50% of the actual income towards future prospect. In this regard, it is s
ubmitted that as the decision of the apex Court clearly lays down that in a case of death of a
self- employed person or a person with fixed wages or an employee of a private sector underta
king, in a motor vehicular accident, who is below the age of 40 years, 50% of his actual incom
e should be added for the purpose of computing the compensation amount payable. It is further
submitted that as the claimants had adduced oral evidence to show that the deceased was runnin
g a travel agency and was earning Rs.6000/- per month, learned Tribunal was not justified in i
gnoring the same and assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-. It is further
submitted that the award of only Rs.10,000/- towards general damages is not proper and justifi
ed. Accordingly, the claimants seek enhancement of the compensation amount.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent no.2 while supporting the impugne
d award submits that the same having been passed on the basis of the evidence available on rec
ord, no interference is warranted. It is further submitted that as there was no documentary ev
idence to show that the deceased was having a fixed income per month from out of his travel ag
ency business, the question of addition of 50% of his actual income towards future prospect do
es not arise.
On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has taken int
o consideration the evidence on record, including the Post-Mortem Report (Ext.7), in coming to
hold that the deceased Pramod Ch.Nath was aged about 30 years at the time of his accidental d
eath. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the amount of
compensation. Though the claimants had claimed that the deceased was a business man having a t
ravel agency and was earning Rs.6000/- per month, in absence of any documentary evidence in su
pport of such claim and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a young and able bodied
man aged about 30 years, learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-, for c
alculating the compensation amount payable. As the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his
accidental death, learned Tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Learned Tribuna
l has further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards general damages.
Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the quantum of compensation amoun
t awarded and the basis on which the same is arrived at, no impropriety or illegality can be s
aid to have been committed by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant any interference in this a
ppeal.
The appeal being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.C.PARIJA, J.)
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in failing to add 50% to the deceased's income for future prospects and in assessing his monthly income at Rs.4000/-.
Whether the award of Rs.10,000/- towards general damages was proper and justified.
Whether the compensation amount awarded should be enhanced.
Claimants-appellants
Insurance Company
Pramod Ch.Nath
S.C. Parija
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court