AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Talapatra, J
[1] Heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
[2] This is an appeal under section 96 of the CPC from the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2015 delivered in M.S. 25 of 2012 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala. There is no dispute about the basic facts that Dinesh Debbarma aged about 30 years met a fatal accident on 23.07.2012 when he was engaged in collecting vegetables from his field and he came in contact with a live electric wire lying on the path for sheer negligence of the transmission agency.
[3] It has been further stated and proved that the electric transformer was placed without any boundary fencing and without any board cautioning the danger. Even there were several requests from the local people earlier to the said fatal accident, but no steps were taken by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
[4] By filing the suit under Section 1(A) of the Fatal Accident Act, 1939, damage for death of Dinesh Debbarma has been claimed by the appellants (the plaintiffs in the suit) to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest @12% per annum.
[5] The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, on perusal of the written statement, whereunder the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 denied their negligence and the Civil Judge, hereinafter the trial judge, seriously questioned the claim of income of the deceased person, framed the following issues:
[1]. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature;
[2]. Whether the plaintiff' has any cause of action to institute the instant suit;
[3]. Whether the predecessors of the plaintiff Dinesh Debbarma died on 23.07.2012 due to electrocution for latches and negligent of defendant nos. 2 to 4;
[4]. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as prayed for, and if so, upto what extent;
[5]. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to.
[6] The appellants led evidence both oral and documentary. Even the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 had adduced one witness namely, Swapan Debbarma (DW1) and introduced two documentary evidence. One is the report from the local agency in respect of the accident. The trial judge has decided all the issues affirmatively in favour of the plaintiffs and assessed the damage at Rs.4,89,600/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 01.10.2012.
[7] The appellants being fundamentally aggrieved by the quantum of the damage as determined in the said judgment dated 21.08.2015 has preferred this appeal on the solitary objection that assessment of the damage has been done inappropriately. The disclosed income has not been made the basis for assessment of the damage.
[8] For purpose of computation of the compensation, the trial judge has taken into consideration various apex court decisions including Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and applied the multiplier 17 on considering the age of the deceased in the age group of 26 to 30. In this regard as well, there is no controversy. If the controversy is located, it is as regards the determination of income of the deceased.
[9] The daily income of the deceased has been calculated at Rs.120/- on the day of the accident. According to Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, such index is grossly inadequate and it requires to be adequately enhanced.
[10] During the year 2012, the minimum wage of a day labourer was around Rs.180/- per day. Considering the daily income as such, the aggregate monthly income would come to Rs.5,400/- [say Rs.5,000/-]. Thus, the annual income would be Rs.64,800/- [say Rs.64,000/-]. The trial judge has correctly followed the deduction method as devised in Sarla Verma (supra). From the said income, 1/4th would be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased person. Thus, the personal income would come to Rs.16,000/-.
[11] Thus, the loss of dependency in respect of the income would be (Rs.64,000 − Rs.16,000) Rs.48,000/-. With the said amount, the multiplier 17 is to be applied as the multiplier has been chosen correctly in view of Sarla Verma (supra). The total compensation [the damage] would come to Rs.8,16,000/-. The said amount would carry interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 01.10.2012 till the payment is made by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
[12] The respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to make the payment within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the decree. The appellant No. 1, on deposit of the said amount will be entitled to 1/5th share and such amount shall be disbursed to her.
[13] The appellant No. 4 and appellant No. 5, as it appears to this court, are adults. They will also be entitled to 1/5th share each and such amount shall be disbursed to them. But the shares of the appellants No. 2 and 3 shall be managed in a term deposit under any nationalized bank till they attain majority.
[14] It is needless to say that the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall deposit the difference of the amount that would arise after deducting the sum what they have already paid.
In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal stands allowed.
Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.