Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1478 (GAU)

Moriom Khatun v. National Insurance Co Ltd.

2018-10-03

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. The present appellants as claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned MACT Tribunal, Goalpara praying for compensation on account of death of their son in a road traffic accident on 30.09.2009 and the same was registered as MAC Case No.482 of 2009. 2. Necessary case in brief is that on 30.09.2009 while the son of claimant was proceeding in a bus bearing AS-O1-BC-2151 Bus, the vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver at Kachadol under Rangjuli police station at about 1.10 pm. As a result of which, their son Mohibul Islam sustained injuries on his person and although he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries after 3 days. The claim petition was preferred praying for compensation for the loss of their son in the said incident with the contention that the deceased was daily labour who used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month and that, they are entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs. 3. On the basis of the claim petition, necessary notice was issued to the owner, driver and insurer of the said vehicle and all the parties contested the case and submitted their written statement. The owner and driver of the vehicle in their written statement contended that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company having valid insurance policy and the driver also had valid driving licence and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and compensation, if any, is to be indemnified by the insurance company. 4. The insurance company in the written statement has raised the contention that the liability of the insurance company is subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions as per the policy and they are not liable to pay any compensation in case of violation of policy conditions. The claimant is also to prove the case in strict manner. 5. Upon the pleadings, followings issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: (i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AS-01/BC-2151 (Bus) or the accident occurred arising out of use of the said vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if so, what should be just compensation? 5. Upon the pleadings, followings issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: (i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle AS-01/BC-2151 (Bus) or the accident occurred arising out of use of the said vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if so, what should be just compensation? (iii) Whether the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation? 6. In the course of the proceeding, the claimants examined themselves and one more witness and also exhibited certain documents in support of their claims. No evidence was laid from the respondents' side. 7. The claimant has led evidence as per the claim petition that on the fateful day, while her son was travelling in the said offending bus towards Guwahati from his own residence, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the vehicle fell down on the side of the road and her son who was travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger sustained severe injuries resulting his death. The other PW-2 who was also travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger had supported the case of the claimant that the vehicle met with an accident due to having no control by the driver for his rash and negligent driving. As a result, Mohibul died in the hospital. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, learned Tribunal held that the deceased died for the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle. 9. The claimant in course of his evidence has produced the Form 54, post mortem report, the discharge certificate from the hospital and money receipt etc. for medical treatment provided. As regards the income of the deceased who was a 18 year old boy stated to be working as labour, learned Tribunal by assessing his monthly income as Rs. 2000/- after deducting 50% of the amount annual income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 12,000/- and by applying the multiplier 15 as per report and by awarding compensation amount ahead funeral expense carrying the dead body etc. and some medical expenses of Rs. 4000/- a total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs 40 Thousand was awarded to the claimant/appellant as compensation with certain direction to share the amount money among the claimants has indicated in the award. 10. and some medical expenses of Rs. 4000/- a total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs 40 Thousand was awarded to the claimant/appellant as compensation with certain direction to share the amount money among the claimants has indicated in the award. 10. Being dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant has taken the matter to appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2000/- in the year 2009 and also the other amount that has been granted under another Account are also on lower side including rate of interest of 5% is also not proper. 11. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 12. On perusal of the evidence and documents on records, it is discernible that the deceased was a young boy of 18 years at the time of the accident and as such in the absence of proper document as regard the income, it is difficult to take monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- as has been mentioned in the claim petition. But however, the amount of Rs. 2000/- per month is of very lower side which can be taken as Rs. 3000/- being the notional income. The parents were the claimants. They are entitled to a reasonable amount as compensation for the untimely death of their son in a road traffic accident. 13. As it appears, learned Tribunal has given the amount to Rs. 5000/- under the head of funeral expenses, cost of litigation which is also found to be in the lower side. 14. The learned counsel for insurance company fairly raised no objection for the taking the income of the deceased as notional income of Rs. 3000/- in absence of proper document. 15. On due consideration of the above, the following amount is calculated as just and proper compensation to be awarded to the claimants: Dependency Rs. 3000/- p.m. and Rs. 1500X12X18 (M) After 50% deduction Rs. 3,24,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Rs.15,000/- Medicial Expenses Rs.4,000/- Miscellaneous Expenses Rs.10,000/- -------------- Total Rs.3,68,000/- -------------- Now the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,68,000/-with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 16. 3000/- p.m. and Rs. 1500X12X18 (M) After 50% deduction Rs. 3,24,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Rs.15,000/- Medicial Expenses Rs.4,000/- Miscellaneous Expenses Rs.10,000/- -------------- Total Rs.3,68,000/- -------------- Now the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,68,000/-with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 16. The insurance company will deposit the aforesaid amount by adjusting the earlier amount if any already paid, before the Registry within a period of 6(six) weeks from today and the claimant/appellant can withdraw the same on due identification. 17. Return the LCR 18. The appeal stands disposed of.