JUDGMENT :

IA NO: CAN/1/2020 (Old No:CAN/419/2020)

The present CAN application is relatable to a prayer for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Upon perusal of the relevant averments contained in the pleadings, the Court is of the view that the appellants/petitioners have attempted to explain the delay most successfully as to what prevented the appellants from preferring the instant appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed.

3. The delay being sufficiently explained, the delay caused in preferring the appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being IA NO:CAN/1/2020 (Old No: CAN/419/2020) stands disposed of.

4. Department to furnish relevant FMA number after registering the case as FMA and accordingly, the same is taken as on day’s list on the prayer of both the parties.

In Re: F.M.A.T.347 of 2015

5. The appeal has emerged out against the judgement and award dated 30th day of August, 2014 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No.85 of 2013 granting award to the tune of Rs.16,84,508/- to dependents of the deceased, for the death of 32 years old man namely, Dilip Barman @ Dilip Kumar Barman in a road traffic accident, occurred on 22.01.2013 after being dashed by a vehicle/gas tanker bearing no.NL-01/9408.

6. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

7. At the very threshold of this case this may be put on record that facts involved in this case leading to the death of the deceased are not disputed.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in law by not granting 40% additional income towards the future prospect, because the deceased suffered his death at the age of 32 years being an employed person under Kabita Construction and thereby putting his dependents family members to an utter financial distress.

9. Mr. Banerjee, also disputes in this appeal that learned Tribunal has not taken into account the settled proposition of law in granting general damages and only granted Rs.9,500/- towards the general damages instead of Rs.70,000/-.

10. The appeal is thus principally on two fold grounds as referred hereinabove.

11. Mr. Sanjoy Pal, learned advocate representing the Insurance Company submits that there lies nothing to be interfered with in this appeal, as the learned Tribunal has considered every pros and cons of this case and decided the award, what is just and proper and as such there lies no scope for making any further interference by this Court.

12. Upon perusal of the judgement impugned and after hearing submission offered by both the parties and bearing in mind the decisions rendered in cases of Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, it appears that there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants.

13. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted 40% additional income towards future prospect, since the deceased left this world, when he was 32 years old only and remaining employed under Kabita Construction.

14. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal should have granted Rs. 70,000/- towards the general damages under collective heads covering loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

15. There appears to be no controversy between the parties with regard to age of deceased, selection of multiplier and ascertainment of extent of dependency.

16. A modification is thus felt obligatory and such modification will make the award perfect, just and proper.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned hereinbelow and recalculated in the manner