Allowed

Mahinta Tripura v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Tripura HC4 Jan 2016MAC App./96/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,66,000 to Rs. 3,60,000 in an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court re-assessed the deceased's income as Rs. 4,000/month and applied adjustments for personal expenses and dependency of the father.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal is modified, compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,60,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from 02.01.2010.

Mahinta Tripura Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — Company and Corporate | Tripura HC (2016)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A

¶2

MAC APP. NO.96 OF 2012

¶3

Shri Mahintra Tripura, S/O. Late Chiarai Tripura, Previously residing at Rashmoni Roajapara, Chaamanu, District-Dhalai Tripura and Presently residing at C/O. Pradip Debbarma, S/O. Swadesh Debbarma, resident of Khumlung, Jirania, P.S. Radhapur, Previously Jirania, District-West Tripura.

¶4

– V e r s u s –

¶5

The Union of India, (Represented by the Director General of Assam Rifles), Head Office at Shillong, Meghalaya (Owner of the Vehicle No. ML-05-E-0363, Gypsy).

¶6

The Commandant, Assam Rifles, 14^th Bn. Chaamanu, P.S. Chaamanu, District-Dhalai Tripura. (Owner of the Vehicle No. ML-05-E-0363, Gypsy).

¶7

The Brigadier-in-Charge, Head Office of Tripura, Assam Rifles, Kunjaban, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura. (Owner of the Vehicle No. ML-05-E-0363, Gypsy).

¶8

….. OP-Respondents.

¶9

BEFORE

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA

¶11

For the appellant : Mr. I. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC, Ms. L. Sarkar, Advocate. Date of hearing and : 04.01.2016. delivery of judgment and order. Whether fit for reporting : NO .

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶14

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 16-06-2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 05 of 2010 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- as compensation to the claimant-father.

¶15

The undisputed facts are that the deceased Harijoy Tripura was travelling in a Gypsy vehicle belonging to the Assam Rifles which met with an accident. As a result of the injury sustained in the accident, the deceased died. The claimant is the father of the deceased. In the claim petition, he alleged that the deceased was working as a informer for the Assam Rifles and that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimant-father has two other children who are younger to the deceased. The claimant could not produce any documentary evidence with regard to the income of his son.

¶16

It is not disputed that the mother of the deceased, i.e. wife of the claimant had already expired. The other brothers who are obviously majors were never made co-petitioners and the claim petition has been filed only on behalf of the father. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. At the relevant time, the father was aged about 52 years. Even in the year 2009, a labourer would have earned about Rs.100/- per day or not less than Rs.3,000/- per month and if 50%

¶17

MAC APP. 96 of 2012 Page 2 of 4

¶18

¶19

is added to this amount on account of future prospects, the income would come to about Rs.4,500/- per month. Normally, when 50% is deducted, the multiplier is applied by taking into consideration the age of the deceased and not the parent. However, in this case the parent is the father and not the mother. He was not totally dependent on the deceased since the father also was a daily labourer. He also has two other sons and, therefore, even in future he would have two other persons to support him. Therefore, I deduct 50% for the personal expenses of the deceased and the loss to the father is assessed at Rs.2,250/- per month or Rs.27,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 11 is reasonable as applied and the compensation works out to Rs.2,97,000/-. In addition thereto, the father is held entitled to Rs.50,000/- for loss of his son and Rs.13,000/- as funeral expenses.

¶20

Therefore, the total compensation is assessed at Rs. (2,97,000 + 50,000 + 13,000) = Rs.3,60,000/- (rupees three lakh sixty thousand).

¶21

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.2,66,000/- to Rs.3,60,000/-, i.e. by Rs.94,000/-. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 02.01.2010 till payment/ deposit of the amount. Since the respondents have already satisfied the award of the Tribunal, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the

¶22

MAC APP. 96 of 2012 Page 3 of 4

¶23

¶24

Registry of this Court within 8(eight) weeks from today after deducting/adjusting the amount, if any, already paid/deposited by them along with proof of such earlier deposit.

¶25

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

Send down the lower court records forthwith.

¶27

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

MAC APP. 96 of 2012 Page 4 of 4

Mahinta Tripura v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinta Tripura v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malati Das Vs Kiran Ch. Basak

Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Jharna SAHAand Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Anal Roy Choudhury Vs Madhab Saha

Kalipada Das Vs Pinki Bhowmik Debnath and Ors.

Rajendrajit Debbarma Vs Sandeep Debbarma