Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1237 (GAU)

NEW INDIA ASS CO LTD v. ANWARA BEGUM

2018-08-21

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant and Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. 2. This appeal is by the Insurance Co. against the judgment and award dated 25-06-2010 passed by the MACT, Hajoi in MAC Case No. 417/2009. 3. Husband of the claimant, late Monir Ali died in a motor vehicle accident on 25-07-2008, involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-07-6278, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant New India Assurance Co. Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 8.5%. 4. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Co. preferred the instant appeal basically challenging the quantum of award. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co., Mr. K.K. Bhatta submits that while determining the loss of dependency, no amount was deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased and learned tribunal also assumed the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- without any reliable evidence and thereby awarded an exorbitant amount. 6. It appears from the record that the deceased was a carpenter by profession and he also proved an income certificate marked as Ext. 7 showing his monthly income as Rs. 70,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. contends that the author of the income certificate was not examined to prove the income certificate (Ext. 7), and as such, no reliance could be placed on such documentary evidence. Leaving aside the documentary evidence (Ext. 7), admittedly the deceased was a carpenter by profession. Therefore, having regard to the avocation of the deceased, his monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no deduction was made on account of personal expenses obviously merits consideration. 7. XXX XXX XXX 8. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that evidently the age of the deceased was 65 years and the claim petition was u/s 166 M.V. Act, and as such, learned tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 7. However, learned tribunal following the II Schedule applied multiplier 5, though in view of the age of the deceased, multiplier 7 ought to have been applied. It is also pointed out, that learned tribunal granted a very meager amount on account of conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. However, learned tribunal following the II Schedule applied multiplier 5, though in view of the age of the deceased, multiplier 7 ought to have been applied. It is also pointed out, that learned tribunal granted a very meager amount on account of conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. Had the tribunal applied multiplier 7 in view of the age of the deceased and as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. -VS- Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) AIR SC 3104, and awarded adequate compensation towards the conventional heads, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs- Pronoy Setty and Ors., 2017 14 SCC 663 , the amount of compensation would have been more than what was granted by the learned tribunal. Therefore, though no deduction was made, in view of applying lower multiplier and awarding meager amounts on account of conventional heads, the award was already on the lower side. Therefore, keeping in view the necessity of awarding just and fair compensation, I am not inclined to interfere with the award granted by the learned tribunal, which was already on lower side. 9. Being of the above view, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant be returned to the appellant insurance co. 11. Send down the LCR.