Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Asama Khatun And Others Resident Of Satbhontirtup P.O. Kalahbhanga P.S. Barpeta - Respondent
Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 64 of 2018
Decided On : 09-09-2019
Mr. S.S. Sharma, Adv., S. Ahmed, Adv.
The main legal point established is the application of legal provisions and judgments to determine the calculation of future prospects, loss of consortium, and the appropriate multiplier for compensation.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2012) 6 SCC 421, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saroj, (2009) 13 SCC 508, Bhartiben Nayabha Ker vs. Sidabha Pethaba Manke, (2018) 5 SCC 716, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018) 5 SCC 656, Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Another vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 2 Tac 593 SC
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a laborer, was hit by a tractor and died due to the injuries sustained. The claimants filed a claim-petition, and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant/Insurance Company contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to doubt the evidence of the eyewitness and upheld the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased died due to the accident. The court also modified the compensation amount based on legal provisions and judgments.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness evidence, calculation of future prospects, loss of consortium, and the multiplier to be applied for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to determine the calculation of future prospects, loss of consortium, and the appropriate multiplier for compensation.
Final Decision: The impugned Judgment & Order was modified, and the appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay the total compensation amount to the claimants within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3/claimants. Mr. Y. Ali appears for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2, who is the father of the deceased, has since expired.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the respondent no. 1, who was a labourer in a wholesale vegetable shop, was knocked down by a Tractor bearing Registration No. AS-15-C-2234 on 11.03.2012. The appellant's husband was rushed to hospital and he died on 05.04.2012 at the age of 24 years.
3. The claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 3 thereafter filed a claim- petition which was registered as MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012. The appellant submitted their written statement before the learned Tribunal. Only the claimant and an eye-witness gave their evidence before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal thereafter passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2016 in MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012, by holding that the deceased died due to the injury sustained by the deceased, on being hit by the tractor, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Tractor driver. The learned Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 18 while computing the compensation awarded and took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 12,14,659/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realisation.
4. Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, inasmuch as, the PW No. 2, who is the alleged eye-witness to the accident in question had not given his statement to the police, though he had adduced evidence in the learned Tribunal, stating that he had seen the Tractor knock down the deceased, who was walking along the side of the road. He submits that the evidence of PW No. 2 is unreliable as PW No. 2 does not find any mention in the police report made in respect of the accident.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly given future prospect @ 50% of the income of the deceased, while the future prospect should have been 40% as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He also submits that the learned Tribunal should have awarded only Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium as per Pranay Sethi (supra). However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lakh as loss of consortium. He also submits that the multiplier to be applied should be 17 and not 18.
6. Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3/claimants submits that the deceased had died due to being hit by a vehicle is apparent, inasmuch as, the evidence adduced by the claimants clearly shows that the deceased had died due to his injuries. He also submits that the medical bills and documents submitted by the claimants with regard to injury and treatment of the deceased, which was exhibited, clearly proves the fact that the deceased died due to a vehicular accident. He thus submits that as the said documents are not denied by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot now take the stand that the deceased had not died due to a vehicular accident.
7. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The evidence of PW No. 2 is to the effect that the deceased had died due to a vehicular accident. The medical bills and documents which are related to the treatment of the deceased have been exhibited and the same had not been denied by the Insurance Company. The records of the learned Tribunal also show that the Tractor in question was seized by the police and that charge-sheet has been filed against the driver
