AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge a judgment and award dated 5th February, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (M.A.C) 245 of 2016.
[2] Brief facts are as under:
On 5th March, 2016 one Krishnadhan Sarkar was going from Teliamura to Chakmaghat on his bicycle. At about 1:30 in the afternoon near a petrol pump at Maharanipur, a motor car (Bolero Max) bearing registration No.TR-01-U-0728 came from the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the cyclist causing serious injuries. He was shifted to Teliamura hospital from where he was referred to G. B. P. Hospital, Agartala but at about 5:00 O'clock in the evening, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was employed as a Helper in Fisheries Department of the State Government. At the time of the accident, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,419/-. He was aged about 40 years. The claimants i.e. his widow and (3)three daughters, therefore, filed the above-mentioned claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.
[3] In the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the motor car. On the question of computation of compensation, the Tribunal relied on the documentary evidence of the income of the deceased being Rs.12,419/-per month and his age being 40 years. The Tribunal granted 50% rise for future income. Considering 4(four) dependents, the Tribunal deducted one fourth for the personal expenditure of the deceased and arrived at a monthly dependency benefits of Rs.13,758/- i.e. Rs.1,65,096/- per annum. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of '15' and calculated the loss of dependency benefits for the claimants at Rs.24,76,440/-. To this, the Tribunal added Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses in order to arrive at a grand total of Rs.25,31,440/-.
[4] This appeal is filed by the insurance company and argued before me on one single ground mainly, that the eldest daughter of the deceased was already married on the date of the accident and, therefore, could not be stated to be his dependent. Thus, there were only 3(three) dependents on the deceased his widow and 2(two) younger daughters. The amount for personal expenditure of the deceased, therefore, should have been one third of his income.
[5] The above contention raised by the insurance company does require a closer look. If there were only 3(three) dependents, the deduction for personal expenditure would arise as compared to the scenario where there are 4(four) dependents. This comes out from the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, in order to apply this principle we would have to first ascertain whether the insurance company is correct in its factual contention. Ordinarily, there would be a strong presumption that a married daughter cannot be treated to be dependent on the deceased. However, in the present case, the claimant No.1 widow of the deceased had deposed before the Court claiming that the deceased had left behind 4(four) dependents and that from his salary he was making a contribution for the expenditure of the family. In the cross-examination of this witness, the insurance company did not raise any question or did not confront her about the married daughter being dependent on the deceased. Thus, insurance company accepted the version of the deponent that all 4(four) claimants; the widow and 3(three) daughters of the deceased were dependent on him. Without laying any factual foundation about the dependency of the daughter, in the appeal for the first time the insurance company cannot raise a contention which is based on a question of fact.
[6] Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to accept this contention. The rest of the computation and calculation of compensation are perfectly in order and in any case calls for no interference. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Records may be transmitted to the lower Court.