Kabia Begum and Another vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.—While considering the appellants'' application for expeditious hearing, we were requested by the learned Advocates of both the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit after hearing them. Accordingly, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. Since the owners of the offending vehicles did not contest the claim case before the Tribunal, requirement of service of notice of appeal upon the owners of the offending vehicles is dispensed with on the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. Thus, the appeal is treated as ready as regards service upon the respondents.

Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award dated 21st December, 2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 31 of 2009 at the instance of the claimants/appellants.

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants as the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation amount payable to them on account of accidental death of the victim in a motor accident occurred on 31st December, 2008 refused to accept the claimants'' claim regarding the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000 per month.

Since the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim regarding the victim''s income as Rs. 4,000 per month, the learned Tribunal calculated the compensation amount payable to them by accepting the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000 per annum.

Since the victim was aged about 44 years at the time of his death, 15 multiplier was adopted while assessing compensation payable to the appellants. The learned Tribunal also found that the offending vehicle being No. WB-33A/4988 was duly insured under the policy of insurance. As such, the learned Tribunal allowed the appellants'' application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,69,500 to the claimants together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition before the Tribunal till realisation thereof within thirty days from the date of passing of the award.

Let us now consider as to how far the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the compensation amount payable to the claimants/appellants on the basis of the notional income of the deceased.

Here is the case, where this Court finds that the accident occurred on 31st December, 2008. Thus, by following the principle as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, , we can safely hold that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was not less than Rs. 120 per day, as the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said decision held that even an unskilled labourer could have earned Rs. 100 per day in 2004.

We further find that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said case ultimately computed the compensation amount payable to the claimants therein by accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month. However, we find that since the income of the deceased was increased, the multiplier factor was reduced by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while assessing the compensation amount in the said case.

Thus, by following the aforesaid decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we propose to recalculate the compensation amount payable to the appellants by accepting the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,600. If 1/3rd is deducted from the total monthly income of the said deceased on account of his personal and living expenses, then the total loss of monthly dependency of the claimants will be Rs. 2,400. Thus, the annual loss of dependency of the claimants will be Rs. 28,800.

Considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death as 44 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the structured formula will be 15. However, in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. (supra), we propose to adopt the multiplier of 13 in the instant case.

Thus, if the annual loss of dependency of the claimants of Rs. 28,800 is multiplied by 13, then the total loss of dependency of the claimants will be Rs. 3,74,400. We further hold that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 3,74,400, the claimants are also entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 9,500 on account of statutory compensation. Thus, if the said sum of Rs. 9,500 is added to the said sum of Rs. 3,74,400, then the total compensation payable to the claimants/appellants will be Rs. 3,83,900.

Admittedly, the claimants have already received a sum of Rs. 3,69,500 together with interest thereon in pursuance of the direction passed in the impugned award.

Accordingly, we direct the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 14,400 to the claimants/appellants together with simple interest @ 6% per annum on the entire compensation amount from the date of presentation of the claim-petition before the Tribunal up to the date of actual payment thereof less the interest amount which has already been received by the claimants from the Insurance Company. Such payment should be made to the claimants/appellants in equal share within thirty days from the date of communication of this order by following the same mode of payment as prescribed in the impugned award.

We further make it clear that the payment as per the direction of this Court will be made by the Insurance Company to the claimants by Account Payee Cheques to be deposited in the Tribunal.

The impugned award is thus modified to the above extent. Both the application and the appeal are thus disposed of. Urgent photostate certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.