Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 721 (GAU)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalhlimpuii

2013-10-01

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

body2013
JUDGMENT : Lanusungkum Jamir, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, as well as Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2012 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 3 of 2010 whereby appellant insurance company was directed to deposit the final award of Rs. 12,38,660 by means of bank draft or cheque in favour of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lunglei within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of default till actual payment. 2. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, submits that the husband of the claimant met with the motor vehicle accident on 2.9.2008 at about 9.45 a.m. when he was dashed by a maxicab bearing registration No. MZ 02-6523. The husband of the claimant as a result of the accident died at Civil Hospital, Lunglei. It was the claim of the claimant that she is the wife of the deceased and that her husband was employed as MRP (Duty) under SP Office and he received a monthly salary of Rs. 10,243 and that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of the accident. On the basis of such accident, the claimant had preferred the claim petition under section 163A for payment of compensation on account of the death of her husband due to the motor vehicle accident. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since the claim application was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is settled proposition that the maximum annual income of the deceased should be taken into account as Rs. 40,000 only for calculation of compensation. However, the learned Tribunal had taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,22,916 and had passed the impugned judgment ignoring the settled position of law. She also submits that considering that the claim petition being made under section 163A, the learned Tribunal had failed to deduct 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal had taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,22,916 and had passed the impugned judgment ignoring the settled position of law. She also submits that considering that the claim petition being made under section 163A, the learned Tribunal had failed to deduct 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that only photocopies were placed before the learned Tribunal and while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal had drawn a decree wherein the calculation of the compensation is also not as provided by law. Accordingly, she submits that the judgment and order dated 6.6.2012 be set aside and quashed and in her support she placed reliance in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). 3. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in their usual fairness have fairly submitted that there are some errors in the calculation as well as the learned Tribunal had failed to consider that the claim petition was filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the records and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni, 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). It is well settled principle of law that claim petition under section 163A is for immediate relief to the section of people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000. In the instant case in hand, the learned Tribunal had erred in taking the annual income of deceased as Rs. 1,22,916 which is beyond the specified annual income under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Schedule appended thereto. While perusing the judgment and order dated 6.6.2012, this court has noticed that certain errors have crept in while calculating the award. 1,22,916 which is beyond the specified annual income under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Schedule appended thereto. While perusing the judgment and order dated 6.6.2012, this court has noticed that certain errors have crept in while calculating the award. Without going any further into the other aspect of the matter as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 6.6.2012 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 3 of 2010 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lunglei requires interference and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. However, the claimant is given the liberty to file appropriate claim petition under the appropriate provision of law, if so advised. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No costs.