Calcutta High Court: In an appeal for enhancement of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Ajay Kumar Gupta,* J., assessed the compensation based on principles laid down by the Supreme Court, granting additional compensation of Rs. 2,47,200/ for various heads. The Court also ordered interest to be paid from the date of filing the claim application.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the appellant/claimant preferred an appeal against the judgment and award dated 20-11-2019, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,94,000/ to be paid within 30 days from the date of judgment and award in a death case filed under Section 166 of the Act.
The appellant moved two applications, firstly, the application for deletion of the name of appellant 2 from the cause title of the memo of appeal on account of her death, leaving appellant 1 as the sole legal heir and representative of the victim and secondly, the application for condonation of delay of 378 days in filing the instant appeal, citing valid reasons for the delay.
The grounds for challenging the impugned judgment and award included the appellant’s claim for compensation under the head of future prospects, actual general damages, the selection of the multiplier, and the calculation of interest.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant contended that various judgments by the Supreme Court have established the claimant’s entitlement to future prospects, general damages, and interest. The appellant requested an enhancement of the compensation amount based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The respondents objected to the appellant’s request for condonation of delay and defended the judgment and award issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Moot Point
-
Whether the appellant is entitled to receive interest from the date of filing the claim application until realization of the awarded compensation?
-
Whether the appellant is entitled to future prospect compensation at the rate of 40% of the victim’s actual income?
-
Whether the appellant is entitled to receive general damages in the amount of Rs. 70,000 instead of Rs. 10,000?
-
Whether the multiplier used by the Tribunal be 17 instead of 16, as selected by the Tribunal?
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that claimant 2 had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and appellant/claimant 1 is the sole legal heir and successor, therefore, claimant 2’s name is deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal. The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay after considering the reasons presented by the appellant. Both applications filed by the appellant are allowed.
The Court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and there was no dispute regarding this matter.
The appellant had impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle as respondent 2 and the insurance company as respondent 1. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim case, while the insurance company contested it, denying the allegations made by the claimant. The Court observed that the appellant presented witnesses and documents, and the insurance company did not rebut their case effectively during cross-examination.
The Court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was low and proceeded to assess the compensation. The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, to determine the compensation.
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to receive additional compensation under various heads:
Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium: Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/-
General damages: Rs. 70,000/-
Future prospect: 40% of the victim’s actual income
The Court clarified that the victim’s age was 29 at the time of the accident, not 35 as wrongly noted in the postmortem report, therefore, the multiplier should be 17, considering the victim’s age group (2630 years).
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to receive interest from the date of filing the claim application until the final payment of the compensation. The Court calculated the enhanced compensation amount as Rs. 2,47,200/ (Rs. 6,41,200/ minus Rs. 3,94,000/), and directed to carry interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application.
Court’s Decision
The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation amount and interest within four weeks. The Court directed the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, to release the amount to the appellant/claimant upon proper identification and verification of ad valorem Court fees on the enhanced amount.
The appeal was disposed of with the above observations, and there was no order as to costs.
[Sibani Parui v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3075, order dated 26-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Counsel for the Appellant
Ms. Sucharita Paul, Counsel for the Respondent
I am private practitioner of IT Act & MACT cases