National Insurance Company Limited vs Anjali Chakraborty And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajib Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. Also heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel along with Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents and Mr. S. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent.

The challenge here is the judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with T.S. (MAC) 06 of 2013 whereby a sum of Rs. 22,61,200/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents which shall be paid by the appellant-insurance company.

Briefly stated, the claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents no. 1,2,3 and 4. The claimant no.1, Smt. Anjali Chakraborty is the wife of the deceased Jiban Chakraborty who succumbed to his injuries out of a vehicular accident. The claimant no.2, Sri Joydip Chakraborty is the minor son of the deceased; the claimant no. 3, Sri Phulen Chakraborty is the old aged father of the deceased and claimant no. 4, Smt. Jyotika Chakraborty is the old aged mother of the deceased. It is stated in the claim petition that during the intervening night of 27.02.2012 and 28.02.2012 at about 1.15 a.m. while Jiban Chakraborty alongwith others were proceeding through Assam-Agartala road by a vehicle bearing registration no. TR-01-Z-0607 (TATA Indigo CS), the accident took place at Reshambagan just opposite to Athletic club. As a result, said Jiban Chakraborty died at the spot. His body was taken to the hospital with the help of police wherein he was declared dead. It is also stated in the claim petition that said Jiban Chakraborty used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of his death. He left behind his wife, old aged parents and his minor son, as aforestated, as his survivors. The claimant-respondents (here-in-after referred to as the claimants) claimed Rs. 23,50,000/- as compensation. In course of proceeding, the appellant-insurance company and the owner of the vehicle have contested the suit by filing their respective written objections. Issues were framed. The learned Member decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. Ultimately, after hearing the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has awarded Rs. 22,61,200/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Being aggrieved, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal before this court.

The crux of submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is two folds. Firstly, he has submitted that the claimants have failed to substantiate the fact that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of his death out of the said accident. Secondly, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lakh as consortium as well as Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses, which is contrary to the principle laid down in the case of Pranoy Sethi. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed judgment of the coordinate Bench of this court passed in MAC APP 85 of 2017 [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pampi Majumder Datta @ Pampi Datta (Majumder) and others].

I have perused the said judgment. In the said judgment, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed on the basis of a notification dated 9th January, 2047 issued by this High Court to determine the compensation in the cases which are placed before the Lok Adalat for disposal to arrive at an amicable settlement. Hence, this judgment, in my opinion, will not help the learned counsel for the appellant.

Now, coming to the present case, I have perused the judgment and the evidence on record.

The claimants in their evidence have adduced that the income of the deceased was at Rs. 8,000/- per month. On the other hand, the insurance company did not adduce any evidence despite being given opportunities to them to contradict or discard the statements made by the claimants. In my opinion, in absence of any evidence led on by the insurance company, this assertion, as raised before this court, should not be entertained. Accordingly, I repel the submission of the learned counsel in this regard disputing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 8,000/- per month when he faced the accident.

Now, coming to the point regarding consortium and funeral expenses. This is established principle of law that a case has to be decided on its own merit. In Pranay Sethi, the Supreme Court has laid down a general principle, but, it was never said that the court cannot increase or decrease the amount of consortium on the basis of other factors arising out of the claim petition. In the instant case, I find that the old aged parents of the deceased have been deprived of valuable service which would have been rendered by the deceased as a son. So, determination of consortium in the amount of Rs. 1 lakh for deprivation of valuable service towards the parents, in my opinion, is not exorbitant, and I agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal.

Again, Rs. 1 lakh was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1, who is the wife of the deceased. The deceased died at the age of 30 years and it is revealed from the record that the wife was aged about 24 years at the time of death of her husband. In my opinion, the claimant-respondent no.1 has been deprived of love and affection and other enjoyment of her life due to the death of her husband at such a young age. So, in my opinion, Rs. 1 lakh, as awarded by the learned Tribunal as consortium in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1 is also not found irrational. Similarly, the minor son has lost his father at this age and needless to say, he has been deprived of love and affection of his father as well as most needed service which would have rendered had he been alive. The minor son will realize the absence of his father at every phases of his future life. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this amount should be maintained as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

I find force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- as held in the case of Pranay Sethi. In the instant case, I find that the funeral expense was determined at Rs. 25,000/-, which in my opinion is contrary to the principle laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi. Accordingly, I interfere with this quantum of award, as awarded against the funeral expenses which should be at Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, the award against funeral expense is determined at Rs. 15,000/-.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the total amount of compensation would be thus, [Rs. 22,61,200 - Rs. 10,000] = Rs. 22,51,200/-. It is made clear that all other statutory benefits, as awarded by the learned tribunal shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, these are affirmed.

In the result, the judgment and award dated 09.06.2016 is interfered with to the extent as indicated above, and the appeal, therefore, stands allowed in part only to that extent.

No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs.