Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 914 (GAU)

Hranghnuni v. Lalrintluangi and Others

2014-09-29

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

body2014
Lanusungkum Jamir, J.—Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 i.e., United India Insurance Company Limited. None appears for the respondent No. 1. By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and award dated 11th October, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 6/2011 whereby the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,33,783 with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization in full. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant, who is the claimant has filed this present appeal praying for enhancement of the awarded amount. 2. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Last Pay Certificate of the deceased was exhibited as Exhibit C-3 wherein the net monthly amount in respect of the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,075. This being the admitted position, he submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in coming to the finding that the actual income of the deceased was to be fixed at Rs. 12,562. He also submits that the contributory negligence of 1/4th apportioned against the deceased was also without any basis inasmuch as it was the car which was turning right was solely responsible for the accident that resulted in the death of the deceased. He, therefore, submits that the 1/4th contributory negligence should also be interfered with. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal while awarding the amount with regard to loss of estate and funeral expenses has not followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the amount of Rs. 5,000 each against the said heads are is much lesser and the same should also be enhanced. He also submits that while awarding the interest rate, the learned Tribunal had also given only 6% whereas it should have been 9%. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the compensation award should be interfered with by enhancing the same. 3. Mr. He also submits that while awarding the interest rate, the learned Tribunal had also given only 6% whereas it should have been 9%. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the compensation award should be interfered with by enhancing the same. 3. Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is nothing wrong in the compensation award made by the learned Tribunal inasmuch as even if the last pay certificate of the deceased was exhibited before the learned Tribunal, the witness of the claimant/appellant himself has deposed that the deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs. 12,562. The claimant witness No. 5 who is an officer of the Transport Department clearly deposed that the deceased Lalnunzama was employed as a Conductor (Bus) under the Transport Department from 12th September, 2008 and his Gross salary was Rs. 12,562 and net payable pay was Rs. 7,719. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,562. He also submits that the pillion rider of the Motor Cycle (Karizma Bike) which had collided with the car had deposed as claimant witness No. 3. The said claimant witness had deposed that he was riding pillion on the motorcycle and that the driver of the car had switched on his signal lights to indicate that he was turning to the right, but the motorcycle hit the car on the right side because it was going in very fast speed between 60/70 km/hour. This being the deposition of the claimant witness, he submits that the contributory negligence of 1/4th which was apportioned by the learned Tribunal was rightly done. In fact, he submits that contributory negligence should have been assessed at 50%. He also submits that interest of 6% which was given by the learned Tribunal may also not be interfered with inasmuch as the same is reasonable. Under these circumstances, he submits that the compensation amount made by the learned Tribunal should not be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. An examination of the Last Pay Certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit C-3 indicates that the net amount payable to the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,075. Under these circumstances, he submits that the compensation amount made by the learned Tribunal should not be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. An examination of the Last Pay Certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit C-3 indicates that the net amount payable to the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,075. However, while going to the records, this Court has noticed the deposition of witness No. 5 who was the claimant witness and employee of the Transport Department under the Government of Mizoram deposed that the net monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7,719 and his gross salary as Rs. 12,562. This being the position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant has not been able to prove the Last Pay Certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit C-3. Accordingly, this Court sees nothing wrong when the learned Tribunal had taken the gross salary of the deceased as Rs. 12,562. The next question is with regard to contributory negligence. The deposition of CW-3 clearly indicates that the motorcycle which had hit the car was going in a very fast speed between 60/70 km/hour. Deposition was also made that the driver of the car had put on the signal light indicating that the car was turning right. When the signal indicator light was on, it was required of the rider of the motorcycle to have slowed down the motor cycle and allowed the car to take its right turn. Instead without slowing down, the rider/deceased had went and hit the front right door of the car. This being the admitted position, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for attributing contributory negligence upon the deceased. 6. Coming to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court is in agreement with his submission that it is already settled principle of law as regards the loss of estate and funeral expenses by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the awarding amount of Rs. 5000 each against the said two heads should be increased to Rs. 25,000 each. However, considering the nature of the case, this Court does not intend to enhance the interest rate as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the awarding amount of Rs. 5000 each against the said two heads should be increased to Rs. 25,000 each. However, considering the nature of the case, this Court does not intend to enhance the interest rate as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, the judgment and award dated 11th October, 2013 passed in MACT Case No. 6/2011 is interfered with. 8. The award against loss of estate and funeral expenses are enhanced from Rs. 5000 each to Rs. 25,000 each. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited shall be liable to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 15,73,783 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in full. The said compensation award shall be deposited before the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order of this Court. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partially allowed. Send down the LCRs.