Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 565 (CAL)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asima Ghosh

2014-06-30

INDIRA BANERJEE, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2014
JUDGMENT This appeal is against a judgment and award dated 6th August, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Fourth Court, Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No.630 of 2006, being an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Act’. The claimants in the claim application were Smt. Moumita Ghosh, wife of the deceased victim, late Deba Prasad Ghosh and Smt. Asima Ghosh, mother of the said deceased. It was the case of the claimants that the victim was travelling from Contai to Kharagpur in a hired Ambassador Car bearing the registration no.WB-30/5619 along with his colleague, Saradindu Karmakar. At a place called Luluchak within Police Station – Belda, the said Ambassador car in which the victim was travelling, was hit by a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the said accident, which took place on 28th May, 2004, the victim died. On the face of the records, the victim was a married man. By the judgment and award under appeal, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,89,812/-, taking iinto account the income of the victim at the time of his death, deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier applicable to the age group to which the victim belonged. Mr. Pahari, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that since the victim was a bachelor, fifty per cent of his income should have been deducted. Moreover, the age of the parents should have been taken into account for the purpose of application of multiplier. In support of his submission, Mr. Pahari cited the following decisions – New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors., reported in 2007 SAR (Civil) 748, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362, Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2011 ACJ 15 , National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Shyam Singh and Ors., reported in 2011 (3) T.A.C. 625 (S.C.), Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) and Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr., reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2011 ACJ 15 , National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Shyam Singh and Ors., reported in 2011 (3) T.A.C. 625 (S.C.), Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) and Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr., reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. The practice evolved by the Supreme Court of deduction of 50% of the income of a bachelor, towards his personal expenses, is not a rigid rule. The deduction would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to whether the victim belonged to the higher income group or the lower income group. Similarly, the application of multiplier would also to depend on various factors and at least, in one subsequent case, the Supreme Court itself held that it was the age of the deceased which was material and not the age of the parents. Reference may, in this context, be made to the judgment in P. S. Somanathan and Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer and Anr., reported in 1 (2011) ACC 659 (SC). It is, however, not necessary for us to go to the question of whether the multiplier applicable to the age group of the parents should have been applied or whether fifty per cent should have been deducted as it is a matter of record that the victim was not a bachelor. He was a married man. His wife, who was one of the claimants, was apparently younger than the victim. The subsequent remarriage of the wife of the victim is not of much relevance. However, since the wife has not appealed against the award whereby the entire amount has been directed to be paid to the parents of the victim and there is no dispute amongst the claimants in this regard, we need not decide a question which is academic. The father being a class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no question of his heirs being entitled to compensation, if any, due and payable to him as a dependent of his son. It is the mother who is the class I heir and also the wife. They would both have been entitled to compensation. However, as observed above, the wife has remarried and she has not appealed against the judgment and award whereby she has been denied compensation. It is the mother who is the class I heir and also the wife. They would both have been entitled to compensation. However, as observed above, the wife has remarried and she has not appealed against the judgment and award whereby she has been denied compensation. We do not find any reason at all to interfere with the judgment and award under appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. It is submitted that the entire awarded amount is lying in deposit with the Registrar General of this Court. Interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall be computed and paid to the respondent no.1 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The interest shall be as per reducing balance. The learned Registrar General shall release the amount lying in deposit with him along with accrued interest to the respondent no.1, being the mother of the deceased victim, by Account Payee Cheque/Bank Draft. Needless to mention that costs and charges, if any, of issuance of Bank Draft may be deducted from the amount lying with the Registrar General.