Point of Law: Motor Accident - Assessment of compensation - No filial consortium has been granted to parents of deceased. Moreover, interest at rate of 9% is as soon higher side which should be reduced to 7%. Accordingly, a fresh computation of compensation is made.

ORDER :

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No. 2), Agatala in Case No. T.S. (MAC) No. 251 of 2016.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

Deceased Dipak Debbarma was travelling in a Safari (Max) bearing Registration No. TR-01-B-4417 from Sonamura for returning home. On the way he slipped from the speeding vehicle at Kulubari and received grievous injury. He succumbed to his injuries on the same day in GBP and AGMC Hospital at Agartala. FIR was filed by one Yusuf Miah who witnessed the incident while riding his motor bike from Kulubari to Sonamura.

3. Based on his FIR, Sonamura P.S. Case No. 2016 SNM 0116 under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered. During investigation it was divulged that deceased was standing at the backside of the vehicle as a result of which he slipped from the vehicle and died. The Investigating Officer submitted final report stating that charge of negligent driving was not proved against the driver. Deceased was survived by his wife, parents, a minor son and a minor daughter who filed the claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 64,70,000/-. Case of the claimants was that the accident occurred as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle on account of which said Dipak Debbarma died. Initially, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as respondent in the case. Subsequently, after the owner appeared and pleaded that his vehicle was insured with Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. said Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as respondent No. 2 deleting the name of the Oriental Insurance co Ltd. According to the claimants deceased was 25 years old at the time of his death who used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month as a skilled mason. The Tribunal held that deceased was 29 years old at the time of the occurrence. It was guessed by the Tribunal that monthly income of the deceased as a skilled mason would not be less than Rs. 9000/-. 40% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 3600/- was added to his income since he was a self employed person below the age of 40 years in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Multiplier of 17 was applied by the Tribunal for calculation of the loss of dependency in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since number of dependent family members of the deceased was 05(five), one-fourth (1/4th) of his income was deducted for his personal and living expenses as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Tribunal then added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of care and guidance of the children and Rs. 30,000/- for cost of medicines and transportation. Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 21,87,000/- with 9% annual interest thereon from the date of presentation of the claim petition until payment.

4. Owner of the vehicle being respondent No. 1 and the insurance company being respondent No. 2 contested the case by filing written objections. It was pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that he had no liability since his vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and the policy of insurance was in operation on the date of accident. Insurance company pleaded that liability of the insurance company would arise only when the owner would produce the policy document and other valid documents of the vehicle including a valid driving licence. Even though the insurer did not take the plea of contributory negligence in its written statement, during his arguments couns