Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1585 (GAU)

Promila Hazarika v. United Insurance Company Ltd.

2018-11-08

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. None appears for the respondent No.2. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) is directed against the Judgment and Award, dated 28.04.2016, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No.30 of 2014 praying for enhancement of the quantum of the awarded amount. 3. The claimant/appellant’s case, precisely, is that she filed MAC Case No.30 of 2014, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in the MACT Golaghat, Assam, claiming compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs on account of death of her husband, namely, Indreswar Hazarika in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.12.2011 at about 5 pm at Da-Dhara Chariali, under Dergaon Police Station. At that time, the deceased was returning home from Koroiani Chapari, Rangamati by riding a bicycle along the N.H. No.37. On his way, a cement laden truck bearing registration No. AS-01 L 9321, which was on from Kamargaon side towards Jorhat in a rash and negligent manner knocked down him from behind resulting in crushing his right leg and also caused other injuries on his person. After the incident, the injured was taken to the nearby Dergaon CHC and therefrom, on being referred, to Jorhat Medical college, where he underwent treatment for 9(nine) days, from 24.12.2011 to 02.01.2012. On 28.12.2011, a traumatic amputation was done through the right leg knee. 4. According to the claimant/appellants, after release from the hospital, the injured did not recover and again underwent treatment from home. The deceased developed anaemia due to excessive loss of blood and he was admitted at A.G. Nursing Home, Jorhat on 25.04.2012 and treated there as indoor patient for three days. On 28.04.2012, the doctor referred him to the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, but in the process of preparation for shifting to Dibrugarh, he succumbed to the injuries on 09.05.2012 at his residence. 5. The claimant/appellant claimed that at the time of death, her deceased husband was aged 60 years and by profession, a carpenter and farmer. He was the bread earner of the family, consisting of 4(four) members and left behind his wife/the appellant, aged 50 years, one son, aged 22 years and one daughter, aged 18 years. 5. The claimant/appellant claimed that at the time of death, her deceased husband was aged 60 years and by profession, a carpenter and farmer. He was the bread earner of the family, consisting of 4(four) members and left behind his wife/the appellant, aged 50 years, one son, aged 22 years and one daughter, aged 18 years. It was further stated in the petition that the injured himself had filed a claim case being MAC Case No.13/12. Subsequent to his death, on 09.05.2012, the aforementioned claim petition was withdrawn on 29.06.2012 by the appellant/wife with liberty to file the same afresh and accordingly, MAC Case No.30/14 was filed on 24.08.2012. 6. The claimant/appellant claimed that at the relevant time of the accident, the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- and the offending truck of the respondent No.2 herein was insured with the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hence, the claim of compensation was made for an amount of Rs.8 Lacs as shown in break up. 7. The respondent No.2, herein did not contest the clam although notice was duly served. 8. The respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. ltd. contested the claim by filing a written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge. The respondent No. 1, however, admitted that the offending truck bearing registration AS-01 L 9321 was insured with the Company and contended that as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle by making payment of compensation to the claimant/appellant herein. It was further pleaded that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident in contravention of the policy conditions. The respondent No.1 pleaded all statutory protections. 9. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following 4(four) issues: “(i) Whether there was any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle No.AS-01/L-9321 (Truck) that caused the accident on 24.12.2011 at about 8 PM near Dadhara Chariali NH-37 under Dergaon Police Station? (ii) Whether the deceased Indreswar Hazarika died as a result of such accident? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, what would be the proper quantum and from whom? (iv) Any other relief? ” 10. (ii) Whether the deceased Indreswar Hazarika died as a result of such accident? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, what would be the proper quantum and from whom? (iv) Any other relief? ” 10. The claimant/appellant herein examined 2(two) witnesses - herself and another, an eye witness to the accident and exhibited 15 (fifteen) number of documents. The contesting respondent No.1 did not examine any witness. 11. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the sides and appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, answered the issues No.1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative and accordingly passed the impugned award. 12. So far as the issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimant/appellant as P.W.-1 has supported the facts of the accident stated in the claim petition and she is corroborated by PW-2, an eye witness to the accident. The learned Tribunal relied on Ext. 1, the Accident Information Report, dated 19.01.2012, Ext. 2, the first information report, dated 24.12.2011, whereupon Dergaon P.S. Case No.292/2011 under Sections 279/338/427 of the IPC was registered and Ext. 3, the charge sheet being Dergaon P.S. C.S. No.43/12, dated 31.03.2012, under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC was filed against the driver of the offending truck and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck on 24.12.2011 at about 8 P.M. near Da- Dhara Chariali, on NH No.37, under Degaon Police Station. Answering the Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal appreciated the various medico-legal documents exhibited in the proceeding along with the evidence of the claimant/appellant (P.W.-1). Citing the principles laid in the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Sumitra Kaur & anr. –vs- New India Assurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2012 (4) T.A.C. 799 (All) came to an inference that the deceased died on 09.05.2012 due to the injuries sustained in the aforementioned motor accident. Determining the quantum of award of compensation, the learned Tribunal held against the Issue No.3 that as per Section 2(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 2009, the claimant wife and her unmarried daughter, named Mousumi Hazarika were dependents of the deceased and as such, they are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Determining the quantum of award of compensation, the learned Tribunal held against the Issue No.3 that as per Section 2(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 2009, the claimant wife and her unmarried daughter, named Mousumi Hazarika were dependents of the deceased and as such, they are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. However, it was further held that in view of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased under the head of expenditure of the medical treatment. The learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased at the time of his death as 61 to 65 and applying the guidelines laid in Sarla Verma & Ors. –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 adopted multiplicand ‘7’ and took a notional monthly income of Rs.3000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards his personal and living expenses determined a net monthly income of Rs.2000/- only. The learned Tribunal, further relying on the ration of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and ors, -vs- Rajbir Singh & ors, reported in Manu/SC/0480/2013, determined the expenses under the ‘Funeral Expenses’ at Rs.25,000/-. Computed thus, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award settled the claim at Rs.1,70,000/- with interest @ 9 %, per annum, w.e.f. 01.09.2012 till realization. 13. Mr. IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, submits that while computing the compensation on account of death of the husband of the appellant, the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount on love and affection and loss of estate and further, the actual medical expenses incurred for treatment of the injuries to which she is entitled, despite availability of materials on record. In this regard, Mr. Talukdar relied on the ratio of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp & anr. Reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd.-vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1366/2017. 14. Per contra, Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. submits that the claim suffers from multiple shortcomings as the claimant/appellant did not examine the doctors who examined the injured turned deceased to prove the medical documents and any income certificate in regard to the profession and income of the deceased. 14. Per contra, Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. submits that the claim suffers from multiple shortcomings as the claimant/appellant did not examine the doctors who examined the injured turned deceased to prove the medical documents and any income certificate in regard to the profession and income of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed no illegality, while determining the award. 15. Perusal of the pleadings and the evidence of PW-1, the claimant/appellant and CW-2, Durlav Bora, the eye witness to the accident, it transpires that there is no dispute from the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. about the accident involving the truck vehicle bearing registration AS 01 L 9321 which was insured with it, but denied rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It was pleaded that the driver had no driving license and that the cause of death of the deceased was not related to the injuries sustained in the accident. Needless to say that the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that the opposite parties/respondents herein are obliged to pay compensation and the Tribunal may follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interest of justice as the procedure is summary in nature, where strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The instant appeal being preferred by the claimant instead of the insurance company, this Court finds it apposite to consider the issues raised by the claimant in appeal. 16. The learned Tribunal determined the awarded quantum of compensation as given here in below: (i) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- (ii) Loss of dependency Rs.2000.00 x 12x7- Rs.1, 68,000/- (iii) Loss of consortium ………………………….Rs.25,000/- Grand total………………………………………….Rs.1,68,000/- Rounded off………………………………………….Rs.1,70,000/- 17. There is no denying the facts that the accident occurred on 24.12.2011 and as a result of the injuries sustained he died on 09.05.2012 and further, that he was an unskilled category self-employed person as carpenter and farmer. Therefore, the determination of the notional income of the deceased is fund to be not reasonable, and the deduction of 1/3rd there from such part of his income as the deceased would have spent had he been alive was, however, rightly made. The claimant did not produce any documentary evidence as admitted in her (C.W-1) cross-examination in support of her deceased husband’s occupation and that he had any land property for cultivation. The claimant did not produce any documentary evidence as admitted in her (C.W-1) cross-examination in support of her deceased husband’s occupation and that he had any land property for cultivation. The opposite party/respondent No.1 herein did not elicit the quantum of his average daily wage as carpenter to determine the monthly income. Therefore, keeping in consideration of the minimum wages of a carpenter in the village area, it can safely be held that the deceased was earning approximately Rs.6,000/-, per month. For assessment of damages to compensate the dependant family members, the calculation of the compensation may be made thus— (1) Special damages : Monthly income - Rs. 6,000/- Annual income –( Rs.6,000 x 12)- Rs.72,000/- Less- 1/3rd personal expenses - Rs.24,000/- Age of the deceased 61 to 65 years Applicable multiplier As per Sarla Verma case (supra) -7 Special damage (Rs.48,000 x 7)—Rs.3, 36,000/- Add- Medical expenses - Rs. 39,218/- Total Rs. 3, 75,218/- (2) General damages As per National Insurance Company Ltd. case (supra) (a) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- (b) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- (c) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.70,000/- Total ( 1+2) Rs.4, 45, 218/- Rounded off- Rs.4, 50, 000/- 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant/appellant is settled at Rs., 4, 50,000/- (Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by the respondent No.1/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by way of enhancing an additional amount of Rs.2,80,000/- over the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal with interest @ 6 % per annum, w.e.f. 01.09.2012. The amount of compensation already paid shall be deducted. 19. Appeal disposed of accordingly by modifying the award of the Tribunal. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.