Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 171 (GAU)

Mangeswari Debbarma v. Pradip Chandrapaul

2012-02-08

C.R.SARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2- insurance company. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order, dated 14.09.2001, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 452 of 1999. 2. By the impugned Judgment & Award, the learned Member awarded compensation of Rs. 7,37,888/- with interest thereon @ 16%, provided the award was not paid within 45 days from the date of the award. The award was payable by the respondent-insurance company in favour of the claimants. 3. Birmani Debbarma, husband of the claimant respondent No. 1 and the father of the claimant Nos. 2 to 5 was an Assistant Teacher of a lower Primary School and he died in connection with a vehicular accident, involving a Truck, bearing registration No. AXA-9916, which was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. the respondent No. 2. The said vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 1. 4. Deceased was holding a permanent post drawing regular salary @ Rs. 7,047/- per month. The claim of the claimants was contested by the respondent-insurance company. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Member came to the findings that the claimants were entitled to get compensation from the respondent-insurance company. Accordingly, the yearly income of the deceased was calculated at Rs. 84,564/- (Rs. 7047 x 12). It was found that the deceased, at the time of his death was aged about 48 years. Accordingly, the multiplier 13 was used and thus, the total income was fixed at Rs. 10,99,332/-. From the said amount, one-third has been deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the learned Tribunal fixed loss of income at Rs. 7,32,888/-. With the said amount, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was added as consortium to be paid to the claimant-petitioner No. 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased. 5. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants, as appellants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the learned Member of the Tribunal failed to grant adequate amount as consortium and that no award was made in respect of future prospect. 6. Mr. 5. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants, as appellants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the learned Member of the Tribunal failed to grant adequate amount as consortium and that no award was made in respect of future prospect. 6. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel, appearing for the claimants, referring to the decisions held in the Cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas & other reported in (1994)2 SCC 176 , Sarla Dixit & another vs. Balwant Yadav & other reported in (1996)3 SCC 179 , in the case of R.K. Malik & another vs. Kiran Pal & other reported in 2009 SC 2506, Smt. Sarla Verma & other vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and K.R. Madhu-sudhan & other vs. Administrative Officer & another reported in 2011(4) SCC 689 has submitted that as the deceased was holding a permanent post drawing regular salary with provision for increment and Dearness Allowance etc., he was entitled to enhancement of his salary, due to fixation of new pay scale in due course and as such, the learned Member of the Tribunal, ought to have granted compensation, on account of future prospect also. The learned counsel has also submitted that the consortium, fixed at Rs. 5,000/-, is too less an amount and as such, the said amount is liable to be enhanced. 7. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the insurance company i.e. the respondent No. 2, referring to the impugned Judgment & Order has submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal considered the materials, on record, and committed no error by granting the award, as indicated above in the judgment aforesaid. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no sufficient ground for interference with the impugned Judgment & Award. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding entitlement of the claimants to get compensation. The only question involved is whether the quantum fixed was just and sufficient. 9. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court observed that having regard to the prospect of advancement in future carrier higher estimate of monthly income in respect of the gross income is required to be made. In the above referred case, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,032/-. 9. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court observed that having regard to the prospect of advancement in future carrier higher estimate of monthly income in respect of the gross income is required to be made. In the above referred case, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,032/-. Considering future prospect, the Supreme Court fixed the said amount at Rs. 2,000/- 10. In the case of Sarla Dixit (supra), the monthly salary of the deceased was about Rs. 1,500/-. Keeping in view all the future prospects, which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, the Court observed that it would not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e., up to Rs. 3000 per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. Thus, the average gross monthly income of Rs. 1,500/- was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 11. In the case of R.K. Malik & another (supra), a bus carrying school children lost its control and after breaking the railing of the bridge on the left side, had fallen into the River Yamuna. Compensation was claimed due to death of the school children in the said vehicular accident. Considering performance of the students and the reputation of the school, the Supreme Court observed that denial of compensation towards future prospects was unjustified. Considering entire facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court thought it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, as compensation for future prospect of the children, to be paid to each of claimants. 12. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the amount of compensation towards future prospect should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. 13. In the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and Others (supra), the Supreme Court observed that:- 8. 12. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the amount of compensation towards future prospect should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. 13. In the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and Others (supra), the Supreme Court observed that:- 8. In Sarla Verma judgment the Court has held that there should be no addition to income for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. The learned Bench called it a rule of thumb and it was developed so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcomes of litigation. However, the Bench held that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 9. We are of the opinion that the rule of thumb evolved in Sarla Verma is to be applied to those cases where there was no concrete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects. Obviously, the said rule was based on assumption and to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the same. 14. In view of the above principles, laid down by the Supreme Court, there is no difficulty in understanding that the deceased being a permanent Government employee with prospect of increasing his salary by way of getting increment, dearness allowance and revision of pay etc. would have earned much more as salary if he would have survived and continued with the job till the date of retirement. Therefore, while computing just compensation, some amount should have been added as loss of future prospect. 15. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to get compensation on account of loss of future prospect, in respect of the deceased. 16. Considering the number of the claimants, the status enjoyed by them as the dependants of school teacher and the facts and circumstance of this case, the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, as loss of consortium is not sufficient. Therefore, I am of the considered view that for ends of justice the said amount should be increased. Accordingly, the consortium is fixed at Rs. 30,000/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, considering entire aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if a lump sum amount of Rs. Therefore, I am of the considered view that for ends of justice the said amount should be increased. Accordingly, the consortium is fixed at Rs. 30,000/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, considering entire aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded, as compensation on account of future prospect, to be paid to the claimants within two months from the date of this order. 18. Now coming to the interest part, it is found that the learned Member of the Tribunal granted interest @ 16%, if the award was not paid within 45 days from the date of award. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the Tribunal may, in addition to amount of compensation, direct payment of simple interest to be paid at such rate, as may be fixed by the Court, i.e. from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. As the compensation is granted under a benevolent legislation, the awarded amount should carry interest. There can be no dispute that the right to get compensation arises from the date of accident itself. 19. Admittedly, the claim case was filed on 10.09.1999 and the payment has been delayed due to contest and litigation. However, at the end, it stood established that the claimants were entitled to compensation. Considering the decrease of money value, for ends of justice, the claimants-appellants are entitled to get simple interest from the date of making the claim. 20. Therefore, it is directed that simple interest @ 6% shall be paid, on the total awarded amount, from the date of making the claim, till the date of realization. The amount already paid, if any, by the insurance company, shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid. 21. With the above observation, modification and direction, this appeal is allowed. 22. Return the L.C.R. A copy of this Judgment & Order be furnished to the learned counsel for the appellant for doing the needful. Appeal allowed.