Akinchan Chakraborty vs Shibu Bhattacharjee

T. Vaiphei, A.C.J.(Oral)—Heard Mr. P.S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Bhattacharji, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. No representation from the respondent No. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the award dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) NO.97 of 2011 awarding a compensation of only a sum of Rs. 4,69,000/- to the appellants for the death of their child, aged about 10 years old, at the time of accident.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.02.2010 at about 9.30 a.m, the deceased (Anamika Chakraborty) was proceeding with her mother i.e. the appellant No. 2 by the left side of the road, one motorbike bearing registration No. TR-01-L-5508, which was also proceeding from Simna side on the Agartala-Simna road towards Panchabati in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased on her back side. This resulted in causing several serious injuries to her, who was then taken to the nearest hospital namely, Katlamara hospital by a reserved vehicle. She was subsequently transferred to AGMC and thence to GBP hospital Agartala, but succumbed to her injuries on 10.02.2011. There is no dispute about the factum of the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. The appellants are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal and, therefore, prefer this appeal for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in determining the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 25,000/-, to which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was added for loss of expectation, financial and moral support as well as loss of company of the child etc. and another sum of Rs. 5,000/ by way of funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs. 2, 80,000/- which, according to the learned counsel, is on the lower side. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- as in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr v. Lala & Ors. reported in 2013, ACJ 2594.

The learned counsel for the insurer, however, supports the impugned award and submits that the compensation awarded was fair just and proportionate, and was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, reported in 2005 ACJ 99(SC). He, therefore, submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He also submits that if at all any compensation needs to be awarded it should be awarded in the name of the mother of the deceased and not in the name of the father of the deceased as held in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 6 SCC 121.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties. I have also perused the impugned award. In Kishan Gopal case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased boy was aged 10 years, was assisting his father in his agricultural work. Both the father and mother are aged 36. The Apex Court, taking into consideration all aspects of the case, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum, adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 4,50,000+ Rs. .50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. The total amount of compensation so awarded came to Rs. 5, 00,000/-. In the present case also the deceased was aged 10 years and was admittedly a student. Under the circumstances, I will not see why a notional income of Rs. 30,000/- should not also be fixed in the case of the deceased herein. The notional income of the deceased is, therefore, fixed at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs. 30,000 � 15 = Rs. 4,50,000/- to which shall be added a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of expectation of life and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 5, 05,000/-. The interest payable to the appellant shall be 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The insurer-respondent is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5, 05,000/- together with 9% simple interest from the date of filing the claim petition by way of demand draft drawn from any of the Nationalized Banks in the name of the appellant No. 2 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and deposit the same with the Registry of this Court. The demand draft so deposited shall be released to the appellant by the Registry after satisfying the usual formalities immediately after receipt of the demand draft without further reference from this Court. Needless to say, any amount already deposited/paid to the appellant(s) shall be adjusted against the enhanced compensation awarded herein. The impugned judgment and award stands modified only to the extent and in the manner indicated above.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.