Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Limited, represented by its Assistant Manager (Legal) – Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Shipra Saha, Wife of late Gurupada Saha and Others – Respondents
MAC APP NO. 37 of 2016
Decided On : 07-02-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Saha, Advocate, Mr. K. De, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. R. Paul, Advocate
The court applied the principles of assessing income, loss of future prospect, and personal expenses to calculate the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Assessment of Income - 166 - 2013 ACJ 1403, (2009) 6 SCC 121 - The court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000 per month, added 30% for loss of future prospect, deducted 1/4th as personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14 to calculate the loss of income. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 18,88,000 with interest at 7% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road traffic accident resulting in the death of Gurupada Saha. The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court assessed the income of the deceased, added for loss of future prospect, deducted personal expenses, and applied a multiplier to calculate the loss of income. The court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,88,000 with interest at 7% per annum.
Issues: Assessment of income, loss of future prospect, personal expenses, and calculation of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from 2013 ACJ 1403 and (2009) 6 SCC 121 to assess the income, loss of future prospect, and personal expenses, leading to the calculation of the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the insurer was directed to deposit the remainder of the award within two months.
Heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel and Mr. K. De, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
2. This is an appeal by the insurer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited from the judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 delivered in T.S.(MAC) No. 255 of 2012.
3. The solitary ground that has been raised in this appeal is that the assessment of income as made by the tribunal below relying on a letter dated 04.09.2011 issued by the Secretary of Jirania Hawkers Union (PW-2) is entirely unsustainable inasmuch as PW-2 himself has stated that he has reflected the income in the said letter dated 04.09.2011 [Exbt.4] on guess only. He has in the cross-examination admitted that he did not examine any documents for that purpose. In the appeal, the incident of the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.07.2012 on Assam-Agartala Road near Madhabbari, involvement of the mini truck bearing No. TR-01-N-1773, in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle as the prime cause of the accident and death of one Gurupada Saha are not in dispute.
4. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 40 years and he has left his mother, two sons and his wife. By filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant-respondents urged the tribunal to award compensation to the extent of Rs.37,50,000/- for the damage they suffered from the death of said Gurupada Saha.
5. Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that Exbt.4-documents cannot be made the basis for assessing the income. PW-2 did not have any authority to issue such income certificate or to make any survey to find out what was the income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Therefore, Exbt.4 letter dated 04.09.2011 is of no relevance. Consequently, the assessment that has been made on Exbt. 4 cannot be sustained.
6. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that when the letter dated 04.09.2011 was admitted in the evidence, the appellant did not raise any objection even though he had participated in the proceeding. Now, they cannot question the content of the said letter dated 04.09.2011. That apart, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel has submitted that PW-1 (Smt. Shipra Saha), wife of the deceased has also in her statement on oath has categorically stated in the tribunal that her husband was a renowned businessman of Jirania and at the time of death his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- to 18,000/- per month. However, she has stated that her husband was about 43 years at the time of accident. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel has stated that in the cross examination even though the appellant had confronted stating that income of her husband was not Rs. 15,000/-, but PW-1 did not give in to such suggestion. PW-2 has corroborated the said statement of PW-1. Thus, what has been held by the tribunal does not warrant any interference.
7. It appears that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.16,000/- and on such basis, proceeded to quantify the damage and accordingly the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.22,41,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.06.2012 till the payment is made. There is no dispute that the deceased had four dependents. Having regard to this aspect of the matter and the nature of occupation of the deceased, this court is of the view that the income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
8. In terms of the apex court decision in Rajesh and Others versus Rajbir Singh and Others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, the tribunal has not added any loss of future prospect. According to this court, in the context of the case, it was the duty of the tribunal to consider that aspect of the mat
