AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 19.09.2013 passed by learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor
Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case No.56 of 2012 whereby the claimants have been given compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,69,500/- deducting Rs.50,000/- if any paid under Section 140 MV Act along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application i.e. 29.08.2012 till its realization.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased though the claimants have
claimed and proved the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- which has been wrongly considered by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,500/-
per month, contrary to the material brought on record as Exhibit-9 (The Original Income Certificate).
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future prospect of the deceased (Vakil Murmu @ Wakil Murmu @ Bakil Murmu), who
was working as a cleaner, died at the age of 27 years, as such, the dependents are entitled for future prospect of the deceased to the tune of 40% of
the income of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the conventional head less amount has been paid in view of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the Case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 68 0para 59.8 (for the loss of Estate
Rs.15,000/-, for loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- is to be given), against which the learned Tribunal has only
awarded Rs.9,500/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest ought to have been paid @ 7.5 % in view of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC .
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even then this Court has considered the future prospect of the deceased, who was
working as a mason in M.A. No.98 of 2014, which has been allowed in terms of the order dated 04.12.2020, as such, this Court may also grant future
prospect of the deceased to the claimants.
Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has submitted that so far future prospect of the deceased is concerned a large number of
cases are pending before this Court, which has been fixed in the month of the February, 2021.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that considering the age of the deceased (Vakil Murmu @ Walil Murmu @ Bakil Murmu)
i.e. 27 years, which falls into the age group 26-30, the multiplier ought to have been 17 which has been wrongly used by the learned Tribunal as 18.
Considering such submissions, let the case be listed in the month of February, 2021 along with the other Miscellaneous Appeal pending before this
Court for consideration of future prospect.