Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 759 (GAU)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SHYAMAL KANATI DAS

2014-08-02

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
Judgment A.M. SAPRE, J. Heard Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the respondents – National Insurance Company (Insurer) of offending vehicle (non applicant) against the judgment/award dated 4.3.2014 passed in MAC Case No. 978 of 2011 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar. By the impugned award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,94,000/- to the claimant for the death of one Titu Das, who died in a vehicular accident. In this appeal, the Insurance Company is challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimant as, according to them, it is on a higher side and, hence, it should be reduced so as to make it a reasonable one. The deceased Titu Das met with a vehicular accident on 2.5.2011 and succumbed to his injuries. He was 32 years of age and was working as a Field Manager with a 1st Class Contractor. On his death, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act out of which this appeal arises, and claimed compensation for his death from the insurer, insured of the offending vehicle and driver of offending vehicle. The Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased was 32 years of age and his monthly earning was around Rs. 6,000/-. Accordingly, by applying the multiplier of 16 and making standard deduction, awarded Rs. 8,94,000/- by way of compensation payable to the claimant. The Tribunal also awarded 50% for his future prospect because deceased was hardly 32 years of age in addition to other statutory compensation towards loss of estate, consortium etc. It is this determination which is now under challenge in this appeal. In my opinion, no fault can be noticed in the award when the Claims Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- for determining the compensation. The relevant part of the award in which the Claims Tribunal has gone into this aspect of the matter is quoted below:– “19. The claimant deposed that the deceased was field Manager of 1st Class contractor and annual income was Rs. 1,44,000. To support that fact he exhibited income certificate vide Ext.7. The contesting OP challenged it. Accordingly the PW2 was examined. He deposed that the deceased was his Field Manager and he paid monthly salary of Rs. 12000. The claimant deposed that the deceased was field Manager of 1st Class contractor and annual income was Rs. 1,44,000. To support that fact he exhibited income certificate vide Ext.7. The contesting OP challenged it. Accordingly the PW2 was examined. He deposed that the deceased was his Field Manager and he paid monthly salary of Rs. 12000. He also deposed that he issued Ext-7. But the contesting OP challenged and put suggestion. The PW2 did not submit any documentary proof that he is a registered 1st Class Contractor. Not only that he though deposed that at the time of payment of salary he was maintain Salary Register but the said Salary Register is not proved. Hence the contesting OP put denial suggestion. As the PW2 failed to bring any documentary proof that he is 1st Class Contractor and he engaged the deceased as his Field Manager and used to pay salary of Rs. 12000 per month I do not take into consideration the fact of employment and earning of the deceased. In that situation I have applied my guesswork like a prudent person to say that the deceased being an able-bodied person was capable to earn Rs. 6000 per month with his supervision skill. As such keeping in mind the aforesaid income the loss of Annual dependency is calculated as Rs. 36000. Therefore amount of compensation on the fatal accident is Rs. 36000 x 16 = Rs. 5,76,000. 20. In addition the mother of the deceased is entitled loss of estate of Rs. 5,000, funeral expenses of Rs. 25,000 and future prospect of Rs. 2,88,000 (50% of the amount of fatal accident). Thus total compensation is awarded Rs. 8,94,000.” It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Field Manager with a First Class Contractor. It is also not in dispute that his age was 32. Keeping these two aspects into the matter, I don’t find any error in the decision of the Tribunal in determining the compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/-. Since his age was 32, the benefit of future promotion etc. was rightly granted in the light of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677(SC) by the Supreme Court. 5,76,000/-. Since his age was 32, the benefit of future promotion etc. was rightly granted in the light of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677(SC) by the Supreme Court. It cannot be therefore said that the compensation awarded is like a bounty to the claimants and nor it can be said to be in any way either excessive or arbitrary so as to reduce it to a lesser sum than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Though Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned award appears to be on a higher side but I do not find it to be so. The Tribunal has taken into account all relevant aspects and rightly applied the law laid down by Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, no case for reduction in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limini. Consequently, Misc. Case No. 2091 of 2014 is also dismissed as having rendered infructuous.