United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smti Beula Dewri And Ors

Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. K. Deori, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1

and 2/claimants.

Owing to the nature of the grounds taken in the present appeal, this Court is of theview that the appeal can be decided at the admission stage

without issuance of notices on the owner and driver, and upon hearing the respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants, who are the affected parties and have

entered appearance. The matter has been taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents No. 1 and

2.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.09.2016 passed by the

Learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1152/2010.

The case, in brief, is that on 19.03.2010, at about 11.00 A.M., the deceased who is theson of respondents No. 1 and 2, was travelling by his

departmental motor cycle. At a place called Jurdalang Tiniali under Uriamghat police station, the truck bearing Registration No. NL05-D-5666 came

in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down from the back side. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he

succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The police registered and investigated Uriamghat P.S. Case No. 18/2010 under Section 279/304(A)/427

IPC. At the time of his death, the deceased was 26 years old and was serving as a constable in the 3rd Assam Police Battalion, Napani, Uriamghat,

drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and the vehicle was driven

by the respondent No. 4, having valid driving license.

The appellant, while contesting the claim took up usual pleas and stating that the claim was exaggerated, and the onus of proving the claim was

strictly put on the respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents No. 3 and 4 herein did not contest the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues :

Whether the victim Manoj Dewri died in the alleged road accident dated 19.03.2010 involving vehicle No. NL-05-D-5666 and whether the said

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said

compensation amount will be payable ?

The respondents No. 1 and 2 examined two witnesses in support of their claim. In respect of issue No. 1, it was held that the deceased had died

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and in respect of second issue, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation as under :-

 Â

Loss of dependency (Rs.7843.50X12X18)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rs.16,94,196/-

 Funeral & Travelling expenses                       Rs.25,000/-

           Total       Â

                                            Rs.17,19,196/-

The claim was rounded up Rs.17,20,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh twenty thousand only).

Challenging the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant has, amongst others,pressed five issues. Firstly, it is submitted that the victim was

a bachelor and had left behind only the parents as claimants and therefore, while assessing the loss of dependency, the age of the parents should have

been considered for selection of the relevant point of the trial. Secondly, it is submitted that as two vehicles were involved, the entire liability ought not

to have been passed on the appellant. Thirdly, it is submitted that interest ought not to have been granted on the enhanced income on account of future

prospects. Fourthly, it is submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107 compensation under the head of travelling expenses cannot be

awarded.

Fifthly, it is also submitted that granting of interest at the rate of 7.5% is on the higher side. 9.  The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and

2 has made his submissions in support of the impugned order.

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides and also perused the materials on record. It appears that the issue of

selection of relevant multiplier has been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

as well as Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled that in a case where the deceased was a bachelor and had left

behind the parents, the age of the deceased must be considered for selection of the relevant multiplier.

The second issue raised with regard to apportionment of claim against the insurer ofthe motor cycle. In this regard, this Court is of the considered

view that the offending vehicle insured by the appellant had hit the deceased from behind. Under these circumstances, there was no evidence of any

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Moreover, the appellant had also not examined any witness to prove that the deceased had

contributed to the accident in any manner. Hence, this stand is not sustainable.

As regards the third issue raised, this Court by order dated 23.04.2014, in MAC App. No. 96/2009-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulochana

Devi Kayal has held that the addition of income on account of future prospects shall carry no interest. In the present case, the addition of income on

account of future prospects was raised by Rs.2,614.50. Therefore, the total amount of compensation on account of future prospects comes to

Rs.2614.50 X 12 X 18 = Rs.5,64,732/-. In view of the ratio laid down in the above cited case, this amount of Rs.5,64,732/- shall not carry any interest.

The fourth issue pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the effect that along with funeral expense travelling expense was

also added to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents No. 1 and 2. Referring to the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court

has standardized the compensation on account of funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, as no compensation on

account of loss of estate has been awarded, the award made under the head of travelling expenses shall be considered as compensation awarded

under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, head of award is modified without altering the quantum of such compensation. In the award,

compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral and travelling expenses shall now be read as award of Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral and loss

of estate.

The last ground taken by the appellant is that the interest awarded  @ 7.5% is on the higher side. In this regard, there are catena of judgments

by the Hon’ble Apex Court, following the ratio laid down in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of victims of Upahar

Tragedy, (2011) 14 SCC 481 whereby interest of 9% on the awarded sum was considered to be reasonable. In the opinion of this Court, therefore

interest of 7.5% awarded in the present case cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, this plea is not sustainable.

Accordingly, only one of the grounds of the plea is found to be sustainable which is theexemption paying interest on the quantum of compensation

on account of addition of income on future prospects as indicated above and all other grounds of appeal as pressed by the learned counsel for the

appellant fails.

Accordingly, this appeal stands partly allowed by exempting the payment of interest of 7.5% on the addition to the income on account of future

prospects being a sum of Rs.5,64,732/-. However, except interest on the said component of award, the balance portion of the award and interest vide

judgment and award dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1152/2010, stands

upheld.

The appellant shall deposit the balance award and interest before the learned Member,Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup

(Metropolitan), Guwahati within a period of one month from today. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal may appropriate the award

amongst the respondents No. 1 and 2/claimant in such manner as if may be deemed fit and shall also cause some portion thereof to be kept in fixed

deposit account(s) payable at a bank where banking is convenient for them.  Â

On producing proof of deposit of the balance award and interest, the Registry may permit the appellant to withdraw the statutory deposit of

Rs.25,000/-.