Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1053 (GAU)

Banti Deka v. Oriental insurance co. Ltd.

2019-09-17

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Mr. S.K. Goswami for respondent no.1 and Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) in MAC Case No. 766 of 2010 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects to the claimants and that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 15. 3. The brief facts of the case is that due to an accident involving an Indica Car bearing Registration No. AS-01-AB-0804 and a Mahindra Savari Tourist Taxi bearing Registration No. AS-11-X-4009, the deceased Paramananda Deka received grievous injuries on 29.12.2009. He died of his injuries on 04.01.2010. The claim-petition was filed and in the proceedings, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the offending vehicle was the Mahindra Savari Tourist Taxi. In fact the driver of the Mahindra Savari Tourist Taxi was also charge-sheeted by the Police in a criminal case due to rash and negligent driving involving the said accident. 4. The learned Tribunal thereafter awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 15,13,000/-, vide judgment dated 03.06.2017 passed in MAC Case No. 766 of 2010. 5. The appellants' counsel submits that the age of the deceased was 40 at the time of his death and accordingly the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 15. He also submits that future prospects have to be awarded in respect of the deceased. 6. Mr. R. Goswami, Mr. S.K. Goswami and Mr. A. Khan, learned counsels for the respondents fairly submit that the counsel for the appellants is justified in making his claim for future prospects and the applicability of the multiplier 15. 7. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The Income Tax Returns of the deceased shows that his date of birth was 01.01.1970. As he expired on 04.01.2010, the age of the deceased at the time of his death would be 40 years. 7. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The Income Tax Returns of the deceased shows that his date of birth was 01.01.1970. As he expired on 04.01.2010, the age of the deceased at the time of his death would be 40 years. As the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that the multiplier of 15 should be applied when the deceased was between the age of 36 to 40 years, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14. 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Shetty and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the constitution bench of the Apex Court has held that 40% of the established income of the deceased should be computed at the time of awarding compensation towards future prospects when the deceased was not having a permanent job and was below 40 years of age. In cases where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years, the future prospects would have to be calculated @ 25% of the income of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased being 40 years 3 days of age at the time of his death, 25% of the future income of the deceased would have to be taken into consideration for determining the future prospects of the deceased. 9. In the case of Pranay Shetty (supra), the Apex Court has also provided for payment of compensation under the conventional heads, amounting to a total of Rs. 70,000/-, i.e. Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and providing Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium. Accordingly the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the various conventional heads in the impugned judgment would have to be modified in consonance with the compensation provided for in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra). 10. In view of the above reasons, this Court holds that the multiplier of 15 would have to be applied and future prospects @ 25% would also have to be applied. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant will be as follows: 1. Income Rs.10,875/-. 2. Future Prospects Rs.2,718/-. 3. Monthly Income + Future Prospects Rs.13,593/- 4. Loss of Dependency (Rs. 13,593/-X 12 X 15 X 2/3) Rs.16,31,160/- 5. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- 6. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant will be as follows: 1. Income Rs.10,875/-. 2. Future Prospects Rs.2,718/-. 3. Monthly Income + Future Prospects Rs.13,593/- 4. Loss of Dependency (Rs. 13,593/-X 12 X 15 X 2/3) Rs.16,31,160/- 5. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Cost of Medical Expenditure Rs.1,20,000/- Rs. 18,21,160/- 11. As the appellant is entitled to payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 18,21,160/-, the Respondent No. 4 is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 18,21,160/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit, i.e. on 09.10.2015 till final payment. The interest has been awarded only from 09.04.2015 by the learned Tribunal due to the delay caused by the conduct of the appellants in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the above direction passed by the learned Tribunal, with regard to the date from which interest would accrue. It is also made clear that though this Court has stated that the compensation amount of Rs. 18,21,160/- would have to be deposited along with interest @ 6% per annum, there will not be any interest on the future prospects, as it is an income to be derived in the future. The compensation amount of Rs. 18,21,160/- and any interest payable there on will be deposited in the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) after adjusting any amount already paid earlier. It is further directed that a sum of Rs. 5 lakh each, is to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank, in the name of the claimant and her minor son for a period of 10 years as fixed deposits. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) in MAC Case No. 766 of 2010 is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. 12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.