National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tripti Paul Chowdhury And Ors

This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 25.11.2019. The claim petition was filed by the widow and two sons of deceased Bimal Paul Chowdhury who died in a vehicular accident on 04.08.2016. Since the insurance company has not questioned its liability to satisfy the award and the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle, it is not necessary to go to the details of the nature of the accident. The counsel for the insurance company had addressed me only on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and I have focused only on this aspect.

According to the claimants, the deceased was about 60 years at the time of the accident and was engaged in whole sale business of drugs. The Claims Tribunal believe that age of the deceased at 60 years accepted his income at Rs.15,000/- per month granted future rise of 10% deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenditure applied multiplier of 9 to arrive at the loss of dependency benefit for the family at Rs.11,00,88,000/-. To this he added conventional sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and awarded a compensation of Rs.12,58,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no documentary proof of the age of the deceased. The post mortem report suggested that he was aged about 62 years. There was also no proof of the engagement of the deceased in the business of BAL drugs. He submitted that the drug licence produced by the claimants was in the name of widow of the deceased.

In my opinion the Claims Tribunal has not committed any major error in awarding compensation. The claimants had deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 60 years which was also corroborated largely from the post mortem report which estimated the age of the deceased at 62 years and which estimation cannot be taken with any precision. Further, the claimants had produced a licence issued by the State Government for sale, stock and exhibit or offer for sale or distribute drugs. This licence was issued earlier and was renewed on 24.11.2014 till 07.6.2019. Thus at the time of the accident this licence was valid. Merely because the licence was issued in favour of wife of the deceased would not mean that dealing in BAL drugs was not his primary source of income. The Claims Tribunal had also referred to the income tax certificates of earlier years indicating the income of the deceased.

Thereafter the Claims Tribunal made approximation which it was permitted to do. If at all the question of awarding compensation for loss of consortium per claimant as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online 410 may arise. However since I find that the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation on other heads and when the claimants are not in appeal this issue need not detain me any further.

In the result, appeal is dismissed along with stay petition and other interim application(s), if any.