Partly allowed

Bajaj Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Satyaban Das and 5 Ors.

Tripura HC4 May 2017MAC App./16/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurer appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,17,000 to the deceased's brothers and sisters. The Court held that the deceased's maintenance of his siblings proved dependency. However, applying Sarla Verma, the multiplier was reduced from 17 to 16, resulting in a revised compensation of Rs. 5,55,000.

What did the court decide?

The compensation is reduced to Rs. 5,55,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Bajaj Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Satyaban… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC App. No. 16/2013

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present: For the appellant : Mr. P. Gautam, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. D. K. Biswas, Adv. Mr. P. K. Debnath, Adv. Mr. G. K. Nama, Adv.

¶5

04.05.2017.

¶6

Heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellantinsurer. Also heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the claimant respondents and Mr. P. K. Debnath, the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in TS(MAC) No.29 of 2011 awarding compensation of ₹5,17,000/- to the claimant-respondents with interest calculated @ 6% per annum with effect from 2.6.2011 i.e. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶8

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 2.5.2010 at about 1 p.m., when the deceased (Sanjib Kumar Das) was proceeding towards Kumarghat by a motor bike (Bajaj Platina) bearing registration No.TR-02B-5363, a truck bearing registration No. TR01H-1519 knocked down his motor bike. As a result, he sustained several serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on his way to G. B. P. Hospital, Agartala. According to the claimantrespondents, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said truck. The deceased was a bachelor, aged 32 years at the time of accident and was survived by his brothers. His

¶9

MAC No. 16/2013

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

brother and sister numbering 4(four) filed the claim petition claiming compensation of ₹27,50,000/-. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal having found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration No.TR-01H-1519, awarded compensation in the manner indicated above.

¶12

The findings of the Tribunal are that the deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident; he was a bachelor; he was a government registered contractor and his monthly income was ₹5,000/-. By applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal arrived at the aforesaid amount of compensation. Aggrieved by this, the appellantinsurer has filed this appeal.

¶13

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence to show that the claimant-respondents are dependants of the deceased as they are his brothers and his sisters and that the application of multiplier of 17 is also contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma(Smt.) and Others Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another: (2009) 6 SCC 121. In Sarla Verma case the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning or married or dependant on the father. The learned counsel for the appellant has forcefully argued that when the claimants are admittedly the brothers and sister of the deceased and are also grown up, there is no question of dependency on the deceased. At this stage, I refer to paragraph-5 of the examination–in-chief of the claimant-respondent No.1, which is reproduced as follows:

¶14

MAC No. 16/2013

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

“5. That, the claimants are the full blooded brothers and sister and the deceased was living with us in a joint family and in the same mess and being a joint family holder, he spent his earnings towards the maintenance of his family members including himself and he is expected to earn more than the aforesaid amount in his future life.”

¶17

Though the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant has made vehement objection regarding the payment of compensation to the claimant-respondents as they are merely the brothers and sister of the deceased, the testimony of the claimant-respondents extracted above has not been disputed or denied by the insurer in their crossexamination. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer would like to contend that there is no whisper or statement in the aforesaid paragraph to show that the claimant-respondents are the dependants of the deceased. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that all the appellants said was that the deceased spent his earnings towards the maintenance of his family members including himself, which is not equivalent to saying the appellants are his dependents. In my opinion, this submission sounds like legalistic hair splitting; this is an exercise in semantic. In my judgment, the fact that the deceased used to maintain the appellants during his lifetime tantamount to saying that they were his dependants. This contention, therefore fails.

¶18

Insofar as the attacked against the choice of multiplier is concerned, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant that the use of multiplier should have been confined to 16 in terms of the decision of the Sarla Verma’s case. This requires interference from this Court. In the result, the loss of dependency will be arrived at by multiplying ₹5,000 x 12 x16 =

¶19

MAC No. 16/2013

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

₹9,60,000/-, from which half of the amount is to be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased had he been alive i.e. ₹9,60,000 – ₹4,80,000 = ₹4,80,000/-. The claimant respondents is further entitled to ₹25,000/- for funeral expenses and ₹50,000/- for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the claimant-respondents will come to ₹5,55,000/-. The appellant will also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶22

The appellant-insurer is, therefore, directed to deposit the said awarded amount with interest to this Registry within a period of three months from today for payment to the appellants. As and when the amount is deposited, the Registry will release the same to the claimant-respondents after satisfying the usual conditions without further reference from this Court. Any amount already deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be adjusted. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

Send down the LCRs forthwith

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

d.dey.

¶26

MAC No. 16/2013 Page 4 of 4

Bajaj Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Satyaban Das and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Satyaban Das and 5 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

Kuputi Tripura and Anr. Vs Pradip Rupini and Anr.

Bahar Miah Vs the State of Tripura

Bilakich Begam @ Bib Kis Begam Vs the State of Tripura

Manoj Kr. Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

Sri Satyaban Das and 3 Ors. Vs Sri Sujit Sarkar and 2 Ors.

Ratan Kar Vs State of Tripura and 3 Ors.