Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 205
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Chaya Rani Debnath & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Barik Miah & Ors – Respondents
MAC APP. NO. 25 of 2002
Decided On : 24.04.2015
For the appellants :Mr. S.K. Datta, Advocate
For the respondent No.2.:Mr. P. Gautam, Mr. S. Datta Choudhury, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act must be fair and reasonable, and benefits received by the heirs, such as family pension, should not be deducted while calculating the compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation Assessment - Section 173 - 168 - 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act - 2009 AISCW 493 - 1975 ACJ 420 - 1980 ACJ 1 - 1983 ACJ 152 - 1983 ACJ 619 - 1999 ACJ 10 - 2013 ACJ 1441 - 2009 6 SCC 121
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Kamini Mohan Debnath in a motor accident, claiming that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation assessment made by the Tribunal was incorrect and contrary to settled legal principles. It held that the deduction made from the deceased's salary on the ground of receiving family pension was unjustified. The court also determined the correct amount of compensation and held the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest.
Issues: The issues involved the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability of the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 to pay the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of compensation must be fair and reasonable, based on a reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded. It highlighted that benefits received by the heirs, such as family pension, gratuity, provident fund, and insurance amount, should not be deducted while calculating the compensation. The court also applied the legal principle that just compensation should be paid to the victim of a motor accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.9,16,704 from the Tribunal's awarded amount of Rs.3,17,000. The Insurance Company-respondent No.2 was held liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala, West Tripura, in Case No.T.S. (MAC) 253 of 1998.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Datta for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. P. Goutam and Mr. S. Datta Choudhury for the respondent No.2United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.1 has chosen to remain absent.
3. The only challenge made in this appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the assessment made is contrary to the settled proposition of law.
4. The case of the claimants-appellants is that on 20.08.1997, Kamini Mohan Debnath was on a journey from Kumarghat to Kanchanpur with bus vehicle No. TR02 1211 and because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, it met an accident at Brikhabari on Kumarghat-Kanchanpur road under Pecharthal police station and as a result, Kamini Mohan Debnath suffered severe injury and he was taken to Kumarghat hospital, wherefrom he was referred to Kailashahar hospital and he succumbed to the injury at Kailashahar hospital.
5. Pecharthal P.S. Case No. 21/1997 under Sections 279/337/338/304A of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle No.TR02 1211. Postmortem examination was done over the dead body of Kamini Mohan Debnath. At the time of death Kamini Mohan Debnath was aged 44 years and he was working as an Agri-Assistant under the Agriculture Department of the Government of Tripura. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,459/-. The claimants were dependant on his income and, therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.27,50,000/-.
6. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, submitted written statement in the claim case denying the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and further stated that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. covering the risk on the date of accident and so the liability, if any, should be borne by the Insurance Company. Respondent No.2United India Insurance Co. Ltd. also submitted written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
7. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 05.04.2000 framed the following issues :
“(i) Whether Kamini Mohan Debnath, aged 44 years died due to a motor accident on 20.08.1997 at about 0845 – 0900 hours at Brikhabari near O.N.G.C. on Kumarghat-Kanchanpur road under Pecharthal P.S. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.TR-02 1211(Bus)?
(ii) Are the claimant-petitioners entitled to get compensation under M.V. Act? If so, what should be the quantum of compensation and who is liable to pay it?”
8. Claimant-petitioner No.1, Smti. Chaya Rani Debnath (Bhowmik), W/O. Late Kamini Mohan Debnath, examined herself as PW1 and also proved copy of the FIR, Death Certificate and Salary Certificate in the name of her husband and those were marked as Exbt.1 series. The respondents adduced no evidence. The Tribunal decided both the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-.
9. The decision on Issue No.1 has not been challenged. It is held by the Tribunal that Bus Vehicle No. TR-02 1211 met an accident for rash and negligent driving on 20.08.1997 at Brikhabari on Kumarghat-Kanchanpur road and deceased Kamini Mohan Debnath was a passenger of that vehicle and he received severe injury in the accident and consequently died at Kailashahar hospital. It is also not in dispute that deceased Kamini Mohan Debnath at the time of accident was working as an Agri-Assistant under the Agriculture Department of the Government of Tripura and he was aged 44 years at that time and his monthly salary was Rs.5,459/.
10. The Tribunal while assessing compensation has held as follows :
“ISSUE NO.2 : In view of decision of issue No.1 it is held that the claimant-petitioners are entitled to get compensation.
What should be quantum of compensation?
