Oriental Insurance Company Limited. vs Pratik Mondal & Ors.

At the very outset we must record that a Cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is stated to have been filed by the claimants, being COT 54 of 2018, which is not appearing in day's list. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the claimants/respondents submits that his clients are not pressing the said Cross-objection, as the grounds, which were taken therein, are already covered by a subsequent decision rendered in this aspect.

In view of the above, the Cross-objection, being COT 54 of 2018, is treated as on day's list and is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.

The instant appeal arises from the award dated 19th December, 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in M.A.C.C. No. 11 of 2015, by which a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,26,32,000/- was awarded together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be reckoned from the date of filing of the said application till payment.

It is an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of the death of Shyamapada Mondal, since deceased, due to motor accident on the road.

We need not elaborate the facts, which are more or less admitted and/or undisputed, as the appeal is squeezed to a solitary point that the Tribunal could not have granted any additional amount under future prospect.

Indubitably the victim was 52 years of age at the time of such accident and was in permanent employment with N.T.P.C. Ltd. He was an Additional General Manager and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,76,553/-.

As indicated above, there is no quarrel on the other aspects, viz. the application of suitable multiplier, determination of the established income, deduction towards living and personal expenses and liability to pay the income tax. The challenge is thrown on the quantum awarded under future prospect and in course of argument the learned Advocate for the appellant took another plea that the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amount under the conventional heads.

From the impugned award it appears that 15% of the established income was additionally granted by the Tribunal on future prospect. It may not be out of the context to recapitulate that at the relevant point of time when the impugned award was passed, the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi

& Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 did not see the light of the day. There were divergent views on the above and was subsequently set at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The five Judge Bench held:

"61 (III) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax."

Admittedly the victim was 52 years of age and was in permanent employment and, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in giving additional compensation on account of future prospect calculated at 15% on the established income.

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded under the conventional heads are concerned, we find that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-towards loss of love, care and guidance and funeral expenses. The aforesaid point was also agitated before the Constitution Bench in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and it is held:

"61 (viii) -- Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

The law enunciated by the Constitution Bench cannot be ignored or overlooked and all the Courts of the country including the High Court are bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

The Constitution Bench considered various other judgements, which are operating in the field, and noticed the conflicts and held in an unequivocal terms that the reasonable figure, which should have been awarded under such conventional heads, should not exceed Rs.70,000/-. The Constitution Bench have also indicated the breakup of the said amount that a sum of Rs.15,000/- should be awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses.

We, therefore, find that the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid conventional heads runs counter to the ratio of the Constitution Bench decision and, therefore, needs interference.

In view of the above, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-, i.e. Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses instead of Rs.1,25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

It is now informed to us by the Insurance Company that the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court.

Out of the said awarded amount the Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw Rs.55,000/- with interest and the claimants are entitled to receive the balance amount by making an application before the Registrar General within two weeks from date.

In the event, the application is made by the claimants, the Registrar General shall release the said amount along with accrued interest, if there be any, to each of the claimants in equal share after verifying their respective identity.

The Registrar General shall also see that the cheque issued to each of the claimants is earmarked for encashment to an account held by them in their individual name in any bank, on the basis of the particulars so furnished by them relating to bank account the balance amount shall be directly transmitted to their respective bank accounts by the Insurance Company within a month from date, provided the particulars of bank accounts of each of the claimants are provided within two weeks from date.

With the above observations the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.