The court upheld the necessity for accurate compensation calculations in motor vehicle accident claims, emphasizing deductions for expenses and appropriate interest rates.

Judgment :

(BUDI HABUNG, J.)

Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,the appellant challenged the judgment and award dated 14.09.2017, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat in MAC case no. 29/2012.

3. The fact leading to the filing of this appeal is that the respondent filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- for the death of his mother, Bonti Devi, who succumbed to her injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident occurred on 09.06.2012, near Choladhara Puja Mandir, under Jorhat Police Station. The claim petition was contested.

4. Upon completion of the trial and after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 awarding a compensation amount of Rs. 30,42,376/- in favour of the claimant/respondent Sri. Prantik Gautam and Proforma Opposite party Smt. Parijat Devi, in equal share, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The opposite party/appellant was directed to clear the amount within a period of 90 days from, failing which they shall be liable to pay future interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of passing of the said judgment till its realization.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant Insurance company filed this appeal on the ground that the award on the head of funeral expenses could not have been more than Rs. 15,000/- and no award on loss of love and affection amounting to Rs. 1 lakh was payable in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case. As such there is an excess of award under the aforesaid head to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- which requires to be deducted.

6. Another ground is that the dependency will stand decreased by deduction of Rs. 3540/- per month (Rs. 500 as medical expenses, Rs. 400 as electric expenses and Rs. 2640/- as house rent) 12x7, i.e, Rs. 2,97,360/-. Thus, overall a sum of Rs. 2,97,360/- +1,10,000/- = Rs. 4,07,360/- has been awarded in excess to the claimant respondent. Therefore, the excess amount awarded to the respondent requires to be reduced from the total awarded amount.

7. The factum of the case and the award under other heads are not under challenged.

8. Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants conceded to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and he fairly submitted that in view of the Pranay Shety’sjudgment, apparently some error is seen in the amount awarded in the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2017. Therefore, he has no objection, if the prayer of the appellant is allowed.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in terms of the judgment and dated 14.9.2017 and the Pranay Setty’s judgment as pleaded by the appellant, he has worked out the actual entitlement of the claimant along with the interest thereon. The worked out calculation made by the respondent was shown to Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant who on careful perusal of the same has accepted the same to be correctand in tune with the challenge made in the appeal. The worked-out calculation submitted to the court is taken on record and marked as document-” X” for identification

10. The calculation made by the respondent and agreed upon by the appellant are as follows:

(Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Thirty-Five Thousand and Sixteen only).

2. Coming to interest part as per the order dated 14.09.2017 are as follows-

i) Rs. 26,35,016.00 (7% from 23.07.2012 up to 14.09.2017) i.e., 5 years 2 months 21 days.

a. Rs. 1,84,541.12 (per annum)X 5 Years = Rs. 9,22,255.60

b. 1,84,541.12 (Rs. 512 per day) X 84 days = Rs. 43, 059.60

Hence (a+b) = Rs. 9,22,255.