Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Daliya Bibi & Ors

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J

Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants are present.

The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 20th May, 2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 610 of 2017.

An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants due to death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 07.07.2017 at about 9.50 a.m. with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a Bus bearing registration no. WB-33C/7764 which collided with the motor cycle bearing registration No. WB34AR/2538 near Radha Krishna Service Station, Medinipur within the jurisdiction of Kotwali police station in Keshpur at Medinipur whereby the victim at the relevant point of time was sitting on the car. The victim sustained severe injuries and was admitted at Midnapur College and Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the Learned Tribunal had erroneously assessed the multiplier to be 18 instead of 17 considering the age of the victim with regard to the voter identity card which mentioned his age to have been 25 years at the relevant date of the accident. More-over, the sum of Rs.1,65,000/- had been granted towards general damages instead of Rs. 77,000/-. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company further stated that during the intermittent period of Covid Pandamic the interest to the extent of 6% per annum should not have been granted and had been excessive.

The learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants submitted that the Voter identity card marked as Ext. 5 denoted the date of birth of the victim to be 12.05.1992 and the accident occurred on 07.07.2017 whereby it evinced that the age of the victim had crossed 25 years on the date of accident and the Learned Tribunal was justified in considering the multiplier to be 18. It was further submitted that in view of the cross objection being COT 117 of 2024 the monthly income of the victim should be enhanced since the Learned Tribunal assessed the sum to be Rs. 5000/- disregarding that a mason at the relevant point of time used to earn of Rs. 350/- per day and sought for an increase in the compensation amount granted by the Learned Tribunal enhancing the monthly income of the victim.

Considered the rival contention of the learned Advocates representing both the parties.

The claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act mentioned the age of the victim to be 26 years. The deposition of PW1 at page 10 stated that the age of the victim at the time of the accident was 26 years and the post mortem marked as Ext. 4 also mentioned the age of the victim to be 26 years. The voter Identity Card marked as Ext. 5 reveals the victim to have crossed the age of 25 years on the date of the occurrence of accident and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the multiplier of 18 assessed by the Learned Tribunal. The general damages to the extent of 1,65,000/- has been erroneously granted which should be Rs. 77,000/- and the rate of interest 6% per annum is also not interfered with by this Court. The documentary evidence with regard to the income of the victim based on the oral evidence the Learned Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the victim to be Rs. 5000/- However, considering the fiscal index prevalent at the relevant time the monthly income of the victim can be assessed Rs. 7500/- shall not be improbable.

Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court Pranay in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SC 121 The impugned award of Rs. 11,73,100/- is modified as follows:

Monthly Income

Rs.     7500/-

Rs.     3000/-

Future prospect (40%)

Rs.   10,500/-

Annual Income

12

Rs.   1,26,000/-

Less 1/3rd   Personal Expenses

Rs.      42,000/-

Multiplier to be “18”

Rs.    84,000/-

X                18

Rs. 15,12,000/-

Non pecuniary damages

Rs. 15,12,000/-

Rs.     77,000/-

Rs. 15,89,000/-

The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs.15,55,113/- (Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 15,30,113)through two separate cheques as per challan filed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company.

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 15,89,000/- at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization.

The office of the learned Registrar General High Court at Calcutta, shall encash the cheques and thereafter disburse the entire awarded amount so deposited along with accrued interest to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants in equal proportion as mentioned in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 610 of 2017 on proof of proper identification of the respondent No.1 to 4/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court fees and refund the balance amount if any through a cheque to the Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company for the accounts of the insurance company.

The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible.