Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 84 (TRI)

Amitava Paul v. Abhijit Das

2020-07-01

AKIL KURESHI

body2020
JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi,J. - This appeal is filed by the original claimants No.2 to 4. They have challenged an award dated 29th January, 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit (MAC) No.296/2014. 2. Brief facts are as under: One Abani Mohan Paul was travelling from Kamalpur to his work place at Ambassa in a Jeep. The said vehicle was being driven by a driver. The vehicle collided with an incoming truck resulting in fatal injuries to said Sri Abani Mohan Paul. His widow, son, two daughters and mother filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.31,00,000/-(rupees thirty one lakhs) from the drivers/owners and insurer of the vehicles involved in the accident and the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. With respect to the compensation, the Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 49 years. He was a police constable. His salary certificate showed that his gross monthly salary was Rs.18,381/-. The Tribunal granted 30% increase for future rise in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another; reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The Tribunal set apart one third for the personal expenditure of the deceased. After applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunal worked out the loss of dependency benefit at Rs.24,85,080/-. To this the Tribunal added the sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others: reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The Tribunal thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,55,080/-. Such compensation was, however, awarded only in favour of claimant No.1 i.e. the widow of the deceased and claimant No.5 i.e. the mother of the deceased. This was because the Tribunal found that the claimant No.2, Smt. Papiya Paul was a married daughter of the deceased. Claimants No. 3 and 4 second daughter and son of the deceased were major at the time of the accident. On such basis the Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants No.1 and 5 only. The sum awarded by the Tribunal was apportioned equally within the said two claimants. Claimants No. 3 and 4 second daughter and son of the deceased were major at the time of the accident. On such basis the Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants No.1 and 5 only. The sum awarded by the Tribunal was apportioned equally within the said two claimants. Against the said award the claimants No. 2 to 4 have filed this appeal. They have not disputed the computation of compensation. Their case however, is that part of the compensation should have been awarded in their favour also. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant No. 2, Smt. Priyanka Paul was the unmarried daughter of the deceased aged barely about 18 years on the date of accident. The appellant No.1, the son of the deceased though was 24 years of the age was pursuing his Ph.d course and was thus also dependant on the deceased. He, however, agreed that the appellant No.3, Smt. Papiya Paul was the married daughter aged about 26 years. Counsel further submitted that the original claimant No.5 i.e. the respondent No.4, mother of the deceased was not dependent on the deceased. He drew my attention to the averments made in the memo of the appeal that the said claimant had already remarried during the life time of her son and her second husband had also expired. She was drawing family pension on account of the death of her second husband, late Narendra Ch. Debbarma. In support of this contention, the appellants have also produced along with appeal memo, a copy of Aadhar Card of original claimant No.5 which describes her as wife of Narendra Ch. Debbarma. The appellants have also produced the copy of order of fixation of family pension of the original claimant No.5 dated 23.9.20ll. This order shows that claimant No.5 was drawing a family pension of Rs.4706/- per month which pension was granted to her as the wife of deceased Narendra Debbarma. On the basis of these documents, learned counsel submitted that the original claimant No.5 was not entitled any compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. T. K. Deb appearing for the respondent No.4, original claimant No.5 submitted that she was joined as a claimant by the rest of the members of the family of the deceased. On the basis of these documents, learned counsel submitted that the original claimant No.5 was not entitled any compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. T. K. Deb appearing for the respondent No.4, original claimant No.5 submitted that she was joined as a claimant by the rest of the members of the family of the deceased. The widow of the deceased had deposed before the Claims Tribunal contending that the mother was also one of the dependents. They now cannot take a different stand. 4. First of all, I do not find any error in the view of the Claims Tribunal holding that neither the major married daughter of the deceased nor his adult son were his dependants on the date of the accident. The Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) has held that a major son ordinarily would not be considered a dependant. However, when it comes to the unmarried daughter, there is an error. She was aged about 18 years at the time when her father passed away. There is nothing on the record to suggest that she gainfully employed or that she had an independent source of income. She was, therefore, dependant on the income of the deceased. 5. More crucial question is that of the dependency of the claimant No.5, the mother of the deceased. It is true that she was joined as one of the co-claimants in the claim petition filed by the widow of the deceased and other family members. However, her status as having married second time and after the death of her second husband, the fact that she was drawing a family pension were two important aspects exclusively within her knowledge. She ought to have disclosed correct facts before the Claims Tribunal. In the appeal memo, as noted above, the ground that original claimant No.5 had remarried and was drawing family pension upon death of her second husband at the time of the accident have been stated. Supporting documents of Aadhar card and family pension order have been produced. The said claimant who is joined as respondent No.4 in the appeal has not filed any affidavit denying these facts. Under the circumstances, without going into strict technicality of requiring the appellants to file a separate application for taking additional evidence on record pending appeal, I have taken into account these undisputed factual aspects. 6. The said claimant who is joined as respondent No.4 in the appeal has not filed any affidavit denying these facts. Under the circumstances, without going into strict technicality of requiring the appellants to file a separate application for taking additional evidence on record pending appeal, I have taken into account these undisputed factual aspects. 6. The sum total of the above discussion is that the original claimant No.5 was not a dependant on the income of the deceased. She had already remarried and after the death of her second husband she was drawing family pension from the Government. Even in absence of these facts, the Claims Tribunal committed a serious error in apportioning the compensation in equal measures between the widow of the deceased and his mother. To begin with the widow has a first claim over the compensation. Secondly, she also had a young daughter to support. She also had a much longer life to sustain as compared to the mother of the deceased. The Courts, therefore, never award the same amount of compensation to the widow and the mother of the deceased. In any case, having come to the conclusion that the mother of the deceased was not a dependant, this aspect is no longer relevant. 7. In the result, it is held that besides the widow of the deceased, his daughter, appellant No.2, Smt. Priyanka Paul would also be entitled to receive compensation. It is further held that the original claimant No.5 i.e. the respondent No.4 herein is not entitled to any compensation. The compensation that the widow of the deceased and his daughter, appellant No.2 would receive is apportioned in the proportion of 75 as to 25 respectively. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with following directions: (i) The respondent No. 4 herein i.e. original claimant No.5 will receive no compensation. (ii) The compensation computed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal will be paid to the widow of the deceased and the appellant No.2, Smt. Priyanka Paul herein in the proportion of 75 as to 25 respectively. If pending this appeal, in terms of the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal any amount including interest on the fixed deposits is paid over to the mother of the deceased, the same shall not be recovered from her. If pending this appeal, in terms of the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal any amount including interest on the fixed deposits is paid over to the mother of the deceased, the same shall not be recovered from her. (iii) Consequently, 75% of the remaining amount of compensation with accrued interest, if any, shall be paid over to the widow of the deceased and 25% of the remaining amount of compensation with accrued interest, if any, shall be paid over to the appellant No.2, Smt. Priyanka Paul. 9. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Record may be transmitted to the lower Court.