Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bijay Lal Basumatary And Ors.

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel, Ms. R.D. Majumdar, learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel and Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel.

Both this two appeals being against the same judgment and award dated 07.03.2013passed by the MACT, No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1558/2005 are taken together for

hearing and disposal.

Pranjal Basumatary, son of the claimant died in a motor vehicle accident, involvingvehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-M-8283, owned by Smt. Chitralekha Hazarika arrayed as

respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 160/2005 and insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The parents of the claimant filed an application before the MACT, seeking compensation

and the learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,38,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal, which wasregistered and numbered as MAC App. 160/2013. The claimant also filed a cross appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation, which was registered and numbered as MAC App. 238/2013.

The Insurance Company filed the appeal basically on the sole ground that multiplieradopted by the Tribunal on the basis of age of the deceased was erroneous, inasmuch as, the multiplier

ought to have been on the basis of age of the parents. However, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. S. Dutta, submits that the issue with regard to multiplier having already been decided by the

Division Bench of this Court in Eunis Ali Vs. Bajaz Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017 (2) GLT 817, the Insurance Company does not press the appeal. In that view of the

matter, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimant, Mr. S.K. Jain, submits that the monthly earning of thedeceased was around 19,000/- and the claimant adduced evidence to that effect. However,

learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimant, assumed a notional income of Rs. 3000/-. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the learned Tribunal did not take

into account the future prospect and as such, the compensation awarded by the leaned Tribunal was extremely meager and unjust and therefore urged for enhancement of the

compensation. It is also submitted that the quantum of award on account of conventional heads were also not in conformity with the guidelines of the Apex Court and urged for

enhancement.

The claimant No. 1, examining herself on oath, deposed that the deceased was workingin a private firm and earning Rs. 19387/- per month, as salary and also produced a salary

certificate. The purported salary certificate produced by the claimant appears to be a typed copy without any signature of the author. Except, this unsigned document, no other evidence

was adduced to substantiate the monthly earning of the deceased and as such, the learned Tribunal declined to accept the salary certificate adduced by the claimant and assumed notional

income as Rs.3000/- per month.

It is no doubt true, that the Claims Tribunal while appreciating the evidence should takea holistic view and consider the evidence with a broader perspective. If the evidence adduced by

the parties, regarding income appears to be reasonable and not absurd one, having regard to the ground realities, such evidence, in absence of anything contrary, is supposed to be accepted

keeping in view the beneficial object of the legislation. But, the fact remains is that some reasonable evidence is required to be adduced. Only because, it is a beneficial legislation, that does

not mean, that one is totally absolved from discharging his burden to adduce minimum evidence to prove a fact. In the instant case, from the evidence, it appears that the claimant has not

been able to substantiate the monthly salary as deposed by the claimant and as such, in my considered view, learned Tribunal rightly rejected the so called salary certificate, Ext.E, which

was not even duly proved by the claimant. Be that as it may, apparently from the evidence of the claimant, it appears that the deceased was not a nonearning person and he was a young

boy and was engaged in some occupation and as such, while assuming the income, learned Tribunal is required to take into account the ground realities, more particularly, the age of the

deceased and the avocation in which he was engaged etc.

Having considered that the deceased was a young educated person and was involved insome work, in my considered view, income of the ceased could not be less than Rs. 4000/- per

month, and in that view of the matter, I am inclined to assume the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month. The claimant is also entitled to add an amount equal to 40% of the

actual income as future prospect as per the principle and guideline of the Apex Court. Since there is no dispute as regards the age of the deceased, multiplier 18 is to be applied and the

deceased being a bachelor, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation, with the income of Rs. 4000/- per

month, adding 40% thereto as future prospect and the compensation on account of conventional heads as per the guideline of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi

reported in (2017) ACJ 2700 is re-assessed as under.

Â

                            Loss of income Rs.4000+40%         = Rs.   5600/

                          Deduction 50%                              = Rs.   2800/

                         Loss of earning Rs. 2800X12X18     = Rs. 6,04,800/-

                                Funeral expenses                        = Rs.  15,000/

                                   Loss of estate                           = Rs.

15,000/-

                                                   Total                    Â

Rs. 6,34,800/-

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall satisfy the above award of Rs. 6,34,800/-with interest as fixed by the Tribunal by depositing the same with the Registry of this Court within

6 weeks. The amount of future prospect shall not carry any interest. Any payment made in the meantime towards satisfaction of the award shall stand adjusted.

The Tribunal shall ensure that 50% of the awarded amount with interest be fixeddeposited in the name of the claimant for a period of two years in a nationalized bank. Rest of the

amount shall be released to the claimant by A/C payee cheque.

Thus, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed.

Send back the LCR.