AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge an award dated 15.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 300 of 2014.
Brief facts are as under:
One Sanjit Kumar Debnath on 13.03.2014 met with a fatal vehicular accident. His widow and three sons filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,30,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal held the driver of the vehicle negligently causing the accident. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9,46,200/-which the insurance company has challenged in the present appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record it would emerges that the deceased was aged about 53 years on the date of accident. He was running an electronic shop. Though the claimants had suggested that he was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, the Tribunal believed his income at Rs.12,000/- which was on the basis of the sale bills that the claimants had produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted 15% rise for future income and deducted 50% for the personal expenditure of the deceased on the ground that the three major sons could not be considered to be his dependants. To the figure of Rs.8,71,200/- so arrived at by the Tribunal for loss of dependency benefits, the Tribunal added a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Total compensation of Rs.9,46,200/- was thus awarded.
I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any major error. Estimation of monthly income of Rs.12,000/- from an electronic shop can hardly be stated to be excessive. The Tribunal has relied on the sale data produced on record and estimated a fair profit rate on the turnover of the sales. The contention of the counsel for the insurance company that the major sons would as well look after the shop, cannot be accepted. As an experienced shop keeper even if the sons were to take over the business, the profitability of the business would go down. If the deceased was alive, with the help of his sons the family could have expanded the business or even set up another shop. It may be that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal without any heading. For such a small amount no modification is needed.
Only modification necessary is for payment of penal interest @ 12% per annum as directed by the Tribunal if the insurance company did not deposit the awarded claimed amount within stipulated time. Such direction is, therefore, deleted. The rest of the award remains as it is.
Appeal disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Send down the lower Court records forthwith.