Mrs. Purabi Sen and Others vs India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

S.K. Mukherjee and P.K. Dey, JJ.—This is an appeal by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 27th August, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Alipore, South 24-Paraganas, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2001.

The claim application has been filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 9,27,092/-(Rupees Nine lakh Twenty Seven thousand ninety two) only as compensation. However, the Tribunal recorded that already a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only has been released in favour of the claimants u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 8,77,092/- (Rupees Eight lakh Seventy seven thousand ninety two) only to the claimants. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded compensation within three months from the date of the award. In default, it was directed that the awarded sum should carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per centum per annum from the date of passing the award till its realisation.

Ms. Sucharita Pal, learned advocate appearing for the claimants/ Appellants, submits that the learned Judge in the Tribunal below applied a wrong multiplier. She submits that in this case, the multiplier of 14 should have been applied, but the learned judge applied the multiplier of 13. She, further, submits that the claimants are entitled to interest on the awarded sum at least from the date of filing the claim petition.

Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company, however, submits that since this is an application for compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no question of application of multiplier in terms of Section 163-A of the said Act.

After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the materials on record, it appears that there is no dispute as regards involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident resulting in untimely death of the victim. It was established that the offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited and due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident took place.

Let us now consider whether the learned judge was justified in applying the multiplier of 13. The victim died at the age of 45 years. He was employed as Senior Surveyor in the office of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. He was supposed to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. His gross income was Rs. 8,823/- One-third of his income is to be deducted for his personal expenditure. Since the victim had still 14 years of service left, we feel that the learned judge erred in law in applying the multiplier of 13. We also feel that justice will be sub-served if we re-assess the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 14, but after deducting his personal expenses and income tax payable on his income.

Therefore, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 8,823 x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs. 9,88,176/- The Tribunal awarded an additional amount of Rs. 9,500/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. So, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,97,676/-. Already the Insurance Company has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 9,47,676/- towards compensation.

The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 per centum per annum on the enhanced awarded sum of Rs. 9,47,676/- from the date of filing of the claim petition, that is, from 15th January, 2001, till its realisation.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire enhanced awarded sum together with the interest in the Tribunal below within two months from date.

The added Respondents shall be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only in total. Three account payee cheques of equal amount drawn in the names of the added Respondents are to be deposited.

The balance amount is to be deposited by another two account payee cheques of equal amount drawn in the names of the Appellants Nos. 1 and 2.

The award impugned in this appeal is, thus modified to the extent indicate above and the appeal is disposed off.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the interlocutory application becomes infructous and the same is also disposed off.

There will be no order as to costs.