SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Lakheswari Boro W/o Sri Nathu Ram Boro – Appellant
Versus
Md. Abdul Rashid S/o Abdul Rajak – Respondent
MAC App. No. 300 of 2016
Decided On : 06-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Talukdar.
For the Respondent: R. Goswami.

Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims.

Headnote:

Appeal - Claim petition - Appellant as a claimant filed the claim petition before Additional District Judge (FTC), claiming compensation for death of her son due to motor vehicle accident which occurred - Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims (Para 20).

Findings of the Court :

In the case in hand, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor - As such the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case (supra) - Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case, 50 % of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent 50 % for his personal and his living expenses.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30/06/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) in MAC case no 1959/2013.

3. The appellant as a claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati, claiming compensation for the death of her son Dhanjit Boro due to motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13/09/2013.

4. The facts of the case in brief is that on 13/09/2013 the son of the appellant/claimant Dhanjit Boro was proceeding to Barmanipur, Morigaon by riding a motor cycle bearing no AS-02-K/7478 along with his elder brother (pillion rider) in moderate speed. When they reached Charangkuchi, Jagiroad, suddenly another vehicle bearing no AS-02-AC/0304 (207 TATA DI) coming from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the motor cycle in which the son of the appellant was travelling. As a result of which both of them sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to the hospital at Jagiroad for treatment but subsequently they were shifted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati wherein son of the appellant/ claimant Dhanjit Boro succumbed to his injuries.

5. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident. He was a government employee, working as a police constable and his monthly salary was Rs. 16,441/-. The Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties vide Judgment and order dated 13/06/2016 awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 12,75,672/- only.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order dated 13/06/2016 in MAC case no 1959/2013, this present appeal has been preferred.

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 14,624/- whereas there was sufficient evidence on record that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16,441/-. In that view of the matter, the award is liable to be modified and enhanced.

8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the age of the mother of the deceased while adopting the multiplier and thereby adopted the multiplier 13 while calculating the loss of dependency. In fact, the age of the deceased ought to have been considered while applying the multiplier and hence, as the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident, the multiplier 18 ought to have been applied instead of 13.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the future prospect of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation. Considering the age of the deceased as 24 years, 50 % ought to have been added to the income of the deceased towards future prospect while calculating the amount of compensation.

10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/ insurance company has agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that he has no objection if the prayers of the appellant are allowed.

11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides and also perused the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 and the documents available in the record.

12. It appears that the factum of accident has not been disputed in this appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a government employee serving in Assam Police since 22/02/2011 vide exhibit 6. Exhibit 7 is the identity card of the deceased which shows that he was workin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top