Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 636 (GAU)

Helen Deb v. Dilip Dey

2004-12-17

A.B.PAL

body2004
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Gan Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent-owner. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 19-6-1998 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala awarding an amount of Rs. 1,34,000 in all with an interest @ Rs. 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the mother-petitioner. Having been aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement. 3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present proceeding is that the deceased Rajib Deb was the son of the petitioner who died in a motor accident at the prime age of only 22. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the mothers as well as the other witnesses were examined and she claimed that he was a mason and earning Rs. 60 per day, which was supported by PW2. The accident has not been denied. The only contention put forward by the respondents was that the deceased was not earning Rs. 60 per day and that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. Learned Tribunal after careful assessment of the evidence on record, awarded the amount of Rs. 1,34,000 relying on the evidence of the mother as well as PW2 regarding the daily income and determining 11 as the multiplier on the basis of the 2nd Schedule to the MV Act. Mr. Barman submitted that he has no objection as regards the multiplier. But the learned Tribunal while reducing the amount from Rs. 60 to Rs. 50 adduced no sort of reasons for such reduction. His further submission is that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the prospect of his future advancement, which was very vital in calculating the amount of compensation. He derives support from the decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomus and Ors. reported in. 5. Independent of what the learned counsel has submitted, I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and I find no reason has been assigned for reducing the daily income of the deceased from Rs. 60 to Rs. 50. Susamma Thomus and Ors. reported in. 5. Independent of what the learned counsel has submitted, I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and I find no reason has been assigned for reducing the daily income of the deceased from Rs. 60 to Rs. 50. As there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the mother as well as PW2, I am of the opinion that Rs. 60 should have been taken as the daily income for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As regards the second contention about the future prospects of the deceased, it is now a settled legal position that this important factor should also be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents that 12 per cent interest has already been awarded which is 3 per cent above the normal rate and that may take care of the future prospects and advancement in career. But, Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this judgment was delivered in 1998 when the amendment regarding reduction of the interest did not come into force. That apart, he further submits that 3 per cent interest cannot be considered to be enough for setting off the future prospects and advancement in career. 6. Considering the rival submissions, the facts and evidence on record as well as the fact that the deceased was only 22 years at the time of death, I hold that for calculating the amount of compensation Rs. 60 as income per day should be the factor for calculating the amount of compensation. With this, I add another amount of Rs. 50,000 towards his future prospect and advancement in career. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Rs. 2,87,600 (60 x 30 x 12 x 11 + 50,000) (two lakh eighty seven thousand six hundred) shall be the total amount of compensation. The award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to this extent. There shall be no order as to cost.