Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rakesh Tiwari, Mir Dara Sheko, JJ.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mainak Ghosh & Anr. - Respondents
FMA No. 1242 of 2016 With CAN 7286 of 2016 (Stay) With CAN 7727 of 2016 (Withdrawal)
Decided On : 12-01-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Krishan Das
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy
The main legal point established in the judgment is the adoption of the multiplier with reference to the age of the victim and the need for uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - [MULTIPLIER] - [COMPENSATION AWARD] - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road accident resulting in the death of an employee, leading to a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the judgment of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal City Civil Judge, 3rd Court, Calcutta.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the grounds raised in the appeal, including the application of the multiplier and the amount awarded under various heads. It discussed the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in cases such as Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, and concluded that the multiplier should be adopted with reference to the age of the victim, and the amount under various heads should be uniform and consistent.
Issues: The issues included the application of the multiplier, the amount awarded under different heads, and the divergence in granting compensation. The court also addressed the need for uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court laid down the law that the multiplier should be adopted with reference to the age of the victim, and the amount under various heads should be uniform and consistent, irrespective of the status or age of the victim. It emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency in awarding 'just' compensation to claimants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, modified the compensation award, and directed the appellant to deposit the modified award amount with interest. It also provided guidance to the Tribunals to follow the relevant aspects and communicate the judgment to all District Judges for consistent and uniform application in deciding claim cases.
Mir Dara Sheko, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. appellant/opposite party, referred to hereinafter as the appellant, assailing the judgment of award passed on 31st January, 2015 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal City Civil Judge, 3rd Court, Calcutta in MAC case no.96 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Malati Ghosh, mother of respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2, was a clerk of Vidyasagar Engineering College, she died in a road accident allegedly caused by negligent driving of the private bus no.- W.B. 19E2199. Respondents nos. 1 and 2 prayed for compensation before the Tribunal of Rs.23,00,000/-under Section 166 of the Act.
3. Taking monthly salary of the victim @Rs.25852/-, applying multiplier of ‘11’ in view of age of the deceased, deducting 1/3rd amount therefrom for personal expenses, and, making addition thereto an amount of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses as well as Rs.5000/-towards loss of consortium, learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment directed the appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.22,81,976/- with interest of 8%.
4. Being dissatisfied with the award the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has come up with the present appeal.
5. Amongst the grounds raised in this appeal first one of those is with regard to the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. According to the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of “7” instead of ‘11’, since at the time of her death the deceased was left with only 6 years 6 months remaining period of service before his superannuation. That apart, the appellant also disowned his liability under the award since the vehicle-in-question had no permit and was not claimed to be involved in the said accident.
6. To justify the grounds in appeal Mr. Das relied on the following decisions:-
(a) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation V. Padma and Ors., 2009 A.C.J. 1336 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 756,
(b) Sankari Bank and Ors. V. National Insurance Co; Ltd. and Anr., 2009(4) T.A.C. 446 (Cal.),
(c) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sajeda Begum and Ors., 2010 (20) T.A.C. 840 (Cal.),
(d) Rita Ghosh and Ors. v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2010(3) T.A.C. 21 (Cal.),
(e) Namita Mishra@ Misra and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2012 (3) T.A.C. 77(Cal.), and two unreported decisions viz., (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Anu Rani Bakshi and Ors., F.M.A. 497 of 2007 with CAN 7589 of 2011 with FMA 689 of 2004 and (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Niyati Rooj and Anr., F.M.A. 87 of 2011 with CAN 10806 of 2010.
7. The respondents/claimants though did not file any cross objection or independent appeal challenging the award, but Mr. Roy argued that Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded enhanced rate under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and to provide the sum under loss of estate by making further addition of amount under the head of future prospect as formulated by the Supreme Court in case of a permanent employee, whose case is to be treated also differently than a victim having no fixed regular income. Therefore submits that the award requires modification by way of enhancement of award as fair and just compensation as is required to be settled under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Roy in support of his submissions relied upon the following decisions:-
1. Jyoti Kaul & Ors. Vs. State of M.P & Ors., A.I.R. 2000 SC 3582
2. Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ans. Vs. Delhi Trans. Cor., (2009) 6 SCC 121
3. Sri K.R. Madhusuan Vs. The Administrative Officer, (2011) 2 WBLR (SC) 705
4. Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors., 2013 SAR (Civil) 525
5. Saraladevi & Ors. Vs. Div. Manager Royal Sundaram Alli. Insurance. Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 2391 SC
6. Puttamma & Ors. Vs. K.L. Narayan Reddy, 2014 SAR (Civil) 276
7. Smt. Phulmaya Tamang & Anr. Vs. The general Insurance. Co. Ltd., (2015) WBLR 674 (F.B)
8. Smt. Phulmaya Tamang & Anr. Vs. The Oriental
