Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 115 (GAU)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. H. C. LALREMRUATI

2018-01-24

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Ms. Vanhmingliani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. None appears for the respondent No.7, even though notice has been served upon the respondent No.7. Notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent No.7 and the matter is being heard ex-parte the respondent No.7. 2. The brief facts of the case is that one H.C. Viachha died when the motor vehicle he was driving, bearing No. MZ 03-5618 rolled down a hill. A claim petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are the wife, four minor daughters and mother-in-law of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle No. MZ 03-5618 and the National Insurance Company Limited contested the case. The learned MACT Aizawl disposed of MACT Case No. 9/2016 vide Judgment & Award dated 25.10.2016 by awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 16,51,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has made a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the MACT Aizawl in MACT Case No. 9/2016, by which the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have been awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 16,51,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 15.03.2016 till the date of payment. 4. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Award on the ground that though the claim petition states that Mr. H.C. Dahlu is the owner of the accident vehicle bearing Regn. No. MZ 03-5618, the claimant's witness No. 2, H.C. Beihmochhua has stated in his cross examination that he is the owner of the default vehicle. The other ground of challenge made by the appellant is that the compensation awarded on the basis of other conventional heads is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Praney Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014 & Ors. 5. The appellant's counsel also submits that the interest awarded is as per the prevailing bank rates. She also submits that the deceased being 24 years at the time of his death, future prospects of the income of the deceased would have to considered on the basis of an additional 40% of the income and 50%, as given by the learned MACT. 6. She also submits that the deceased being 24 years at the time of his death, future prospects of the income of the deceased would have to considered on the basis of an additional 40% of the income and 50%, as given by the learned MACT. 6. The appellant's counsel thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Order should be set aside in view of the above infirmities. 7. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 submits that the evidence given by H.C. Beihmochhua in his cross examination does change the fact that the accident vehicle was MZ 03-5618. The said CW No. 2, H.C. Beihmochhua, who is the employer of the deceased, has only claimed ownership of vehicle bearing Regn. No. MZ 03-4975. He submits that even if it is assumed that the owner of the accident vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ 03-5618 was CW No. 2, the claimants are still entitled to payment of compensation, as the accident vehicle was validly insured with the Insurance Company. 8. The respondent's counsel also fairly submits that some modification would have to be made in the compensation amount awarded to the respondents in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. H.C. Beihmochhua in the first paragraph of his cross examination states as follows :- "It is a fact that I am the owner of default vehicle involved in the instant case bearing Regn. No. MZ 03-4975". The above statement made by H.C. Beihmochhua clearly shows that he has admitted to being the owner of vehicle bearing Regn. No. MZ 03-4975. The above statement does infer that H.C. Boichhua had admitted to being the owner of the accident vehicle i.e. MZ 03-5618. 11. On perusal of the certificate of insurance, the same shows that the owner of the accident vehicle MZ03 5618 is one H.C. Dahlu and that the insurance policy was valid at the time the accident occurred. The documents on record also show that the registration number of the accident vehicle was MZ 03-5618. 12. Even assuming that H.C. Boimuchhua was the owner of the accident vehicle at the relevant point of time, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. The documents on record also show that the registration number of the accident vehicle was MZ 03-5618. 12. Even assuming that H.C. Boimuchhua was the owner of the accident vehicle at the relevant point of time, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Tilak Singh & Others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the liability of the Insurance does cease as far as the third party is concerned, even if the Insurance Company was intimated by the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, both under Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance policy being valid, the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability for giving compensation to the claimants. 13. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Praney Sethi & Others (Supra), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that in the case of a deceased, who was on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the present case, the income of the deceased was on a fixed salary of Rs. 3,300/- per month and he was also below the age of 40 years. Accordingly, there should have been an addition of 40% of the established income as future prospects of the deceased. Thus, the learned MACT fell into error in granting 50% of the established income as future prospects of the deceased. 14. In respect of the conventional heads under loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expense, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has fixed as reasonable figures, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- 40,000/- and 15,000/- respectively, which are to be enhanced @ 10% every 3 years. The Judgment of the Constitutional Bench having been passed on 31.10.2017, there can be no enhancement on the figures fixed for payment of conventional heads as on date. In view of the above, the amount awarded by the learned MACT for conventional heads would have to be modified in line with the figures fixed by the Constitution Bench. 15. The Judgment of the Constitutional Bench having been passed on 31.10.2017, there can be no enhancement on the figures fixed for payment of conventional heads as on date. In view of the above, the amount awarded by the learned MACT for conventional heads would have to be modified in line with the figures fixed by the Constitution Bench. 15. In respect of the directions for payment of interest @ 9% p.a, this Court is of the view that proper interest should be awarded as per the prevailing Bank rates for fixed deposits, which is 7% p.a. This is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another, reported in 2003 (3) SCC 148 , wherein, the Apex Court has held at para 6 as follows : "6. The question as to what should be rate of interest, in the opinion of this Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time." Further, in the case of Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in 2014 (3) TAC 707 (SC), the Apex Court has granted Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of expectation of life. 16. In view of the above reasons, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant is as follows : (1) Annual Income 3,300 x 12= 39,600 (2) Addition of 40% for future prospects 36,600 x 40/100 = 15840 (3) Loss of Income 39,600 + 15,840 x 18 x 3 4 = 7,48,440 (4) Loss of consortium 40,000 (5) Loss of Love & Affection for 4 children 4,00,000 (6) Loss of Love & Affection for mother 1,00,000 (7) Funeral Expenses 15,000 (8) Loss of Estate 15,000 (9) Loss of Expectation of Life 1,00,000 Total 14,73,880/- 17. The appellant is directed to deposit the above amount of Rs.14,73,880/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs seventy three thousand eight hundred eighty) only along with the interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 15.03.2016, till the date of payment to the MACT within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 18. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 25.10.2016 in MACT Case No. 9/2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCRs. 19. 18. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 25.10.2016 in MACT Case No. 9/2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCRs. 19. The appellant is allowed to take back the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- with interest, if any, which was deposited in the Registry of this Court.