AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. I.Das, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Co. against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2011 passed by MACT, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No.
85/2009.
One Amu Jaima Singh (since deceased) died in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-11/C-9286, owned by
respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant.
Two sons of the deceased filed an application before the MACT, Cachar, Silchar, praying for compensation and the learned tribunal by the
impugned judgment, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,68,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filling of the claim petition.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant Insurance Co. preferred the instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. submits that both the sons of the deceased were earning at the time, when the accident occurred, and they
were not dependent on the income of the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. is that the sons of the deceased were
not dependent on the deceased, and as such, they were not entitled to compensation. The law in this respect is well settled, that dependency is not the
sole criteria for seeking compensation under the M.V. Act. The liability of the insurer of a vehicle to pay compensation does not cease with the
absence of dependency. For death of a person in a motor vehicle accident the legal representatives can seek compensation for loss of dependency
and also for loss of estate. The Apex Court in Manjuri Bera-VS- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, (2007) 10 SCC relied by learned counsel for
the appellant observed that “even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if she is legal representative, will be entitled to compensation, the
quantum of compensation shall not be less than the liability flowing from section 140 of the Act.
It is no doubt true, that since the claimants were not dependents, the compensation ought not to have been determined on the basis of loss of
dependency, rather, it ought to have been determined on the basis of loss of estate, which the claimants had suffered due to death of their father.
Though, there is no established principle to determine the loss of estate, it is understandable that the amount, which one can save from his income
after defraying all his expenses can be considered as estate of the deceased. This Court in Ranjan Narzary -VS- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And
Ors. reported in 2014 (3) GLT 601 assumed 1/4th of the monthly income as estate. Following Ranjan Narzary' s case, in another decision, in MAC
App. No. 4/2012, which is also relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court assumed 1/4th of the income as estate of the deceased.
In the instant case, the claimants stated that deceased was a businessman and he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. Claimants also adduced
evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. However, the learned tribunal ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimants, assumed a
hypothetical notional income of Rs. 3,000/- and determined a paltry amount of compensation being Rs. 2,68,500/- on the basis of such income.
It is to be borne in mind, that notional income is intended for non-earning person and not for earning person. When the claimants adduced evidence
with regard to occupation and income of the deceased establishing, that deceased had monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- and there was no contrary
evidence to dislodge the evidence adduced by the claimants, learned tribunal ought not to have ignored the evidence adduced by the claimants. Had
the tribunal determined the compensation taking the actual income of the deceased, even on the basis of 1/4th of the income as loss of estate, the total
amount of compensation could not have been less than, what was granted by the learned tribunal on the basis of loss of dependency. It is also evident
that the learned tribunal granted only Rs. 2,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate, which ought to have been at least Rs.30,000/-
as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. â€"VS- Pronoy Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.
Having considered the above aspect of the matter and that the learned awarded a paltry amount of Rs. 2,68,500/-, without considering the income
of the deceased, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award made by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.