AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal and cross objections arise out of the award dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 277 of 2011 and T.S.(MAC) 49 of 2011.
Brief facts are as under:
The appellants are widow and minor daughter of deceased Palit Debbarma who died in a vehicular accident on 16.10.2010. At the time of accident he was travelling in a motorcycle which collided with a canter truck coming from the opposite direction. Cross objections are filed by the insurer of the said truck whose driver is held 100% negligent in causing the accident.
Initially the parents of the deceased had filed motor accident claim petition No.T.S.(MAC) 49 of 2011 in which the wife and daughter were joined as respondents. It appears that the said claimants compromised the claim petition before a Lok Adalat on 10.12.2011 accepting total compensation of `1,50,000. The present appellants, i.e. the widow and the daughter of the deceased claimed that no notice of such proceedings before Lok Adalat was served to them. In the meantime, they had themselves filed a separate claim petition No.T.S.(MAC) 277 of 2011. They challenged the order passed by the Lok Adalat by filing a revision petition before the High Court. Such revision petition was allowed by an order dated 30.01.2013. Following order was passed:
"Under such circumstances, in exercise of extra ordinary power vested in this Court to ensure justice, I think the order passed by Lok Adalat should be interfered and accordingly, order dated 10.12.2011 passed in Lok Adalat, Court No.1, Agartala in TS(MAC) 49 of 2011 is set aside.
The case is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal to dispose it afresh according to law along with the petition filed by the present petitioners which has been registered as TS(MAC) 277 of 2011.
With this direction the Civil revisional application stands disposed of."
Thereupon both the claim petitions were consolidated. During the course of hearing of such claim petitions on 16.11.2017 advocate for the parents of the deceased made a declaration that the father has expired and whereabouts of the mother are not known. He would, therefore, not appear for them any longer.
Eventually the widow led evidence before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment awarded a compensation of Rs.10,54,200. Such amount was apportioned in the following manner: Rs.40,000 awarded towards consortium was granted exclusively to the widow. Remaining sum, i.e. Rs.10,14,200 would be shared equally by all 4(four) claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation. The deceased was working as a rubber tapper which is a skilled job. He was earning Rs.10,000 per month at the time of the accident. The Tribunal believed his income barely of Rs.6,000.
His other grievance was that the Claims Tribunal has apportioned the entire claimed amount minus the compensation for consortium equally between 4(four) claimants and thus committed a serious error.
Learned counsel Ms. Rajashree Purkayastha for the insurance company raised following contentions:
(i) The Claims Tribunal has set apart 1/5th of the income of the deceased for his personal expenditure. Looking into the size of the dependents the same should have been 1/4th;
(ii) The deceased did not have valid driving licence. The insurance company, therefore, should have been absolved from payment of compensation;
(iii) She lastly contended that for several years the claimants did not take steps to serve the insurance company and on account of which there was considerable delay in disposal of the claim petition. The insurance company cannot be saddled with liability of paying interest for such period.
Firstly, I may address the question of computation of compensation. The assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.6,000 per month at the time of the accident requires no modification. The Tribunal, however, did not consider any future rise in income. By virtue of the judgments of Supreme Court in cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 there shall be 40% increase on such current income. His prospective income would, therefore, come to Rs.8,400 per month. There were 4(four) dependents at the time of the accident. There shall be 1/4th deduction for the personal expenditure of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,100. The loss of dependency benefit would, therefore, work out to Rs.6,300 per month or Rs.75,600 per annum. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 17 would be applied. This will bring the loss of dependency benefit at Rs.12,85,200. To this we may add a sum of Rs.70,000 towards conventional heads as provided by the Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The total compensation would thus come to Rs.13,55,200 (rupees thirteen lakhs fifty five thousand two hundred).
The Tribunal committed a serious error in apportioning such compensation minus `40,000 towards consortium equally between four claimants. Firstly, the Tribunal was informed that the father has already expired. Even the mother was untraceable. In any case, the claim of an aged mother cannot be equated with that of a young widow with minor child to look after after sudden death of her husband. Under the circumstances, the apportionment of the entire amount can safely be made in the following manner: 50% in favour of the widow, 25% in favour of the minor daughter and remaining 25% in favour of the mother. Presently, the mother has not come forward to claim such amount. The entire revised compensation with proportionate costs and interest will be deposited by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal within 2(two) months from today after accounting for amount which may have been already deposited. Upon such deposit, the Claims Tribunal shall invest 25% thereof each in two separate fixed deposits in any nationalized Bank for a period of 3(three) years. Interest accumulating in one such fixed deposit will be paid over to the widow and minor daughter. The other fixed deposit would be where interest will not be paid till the date of maturity. At the end of the period, the recurring deposit would be paid over to the widow and the minor daughter. The other fixed deposit with accumulated interest at the time of maturity would be paid to the mother of the deceased if by then she comes forward to claim it. If not, it shall be any way presumed under the law that she is not alive and such amount would be paid over to the widow and the minor daughter of the deceased.
Before closing, the contention regarding interest cannot be accepted. The insurance company is asked to pay simple interest at the reasonable rate of 6%. In any case, for the delayed period the insurance company did not have to part with such money.
Contention regarding no driving licence of the deceased would not absolve the insurance company from its liability. The Tribunal has held the driver of the canter truck was negligent in causing the accident. As insurer of the said vehicle, the insurance company was, therefore, held liable to satisfy the award. It is not the case of the insurance company that the driver of this vehicle did not have valid driving licence. The fact that the deceased had no licence is not relevant for the liability of the insurance company. There is a distinction between not holding a valid licence and being negligent in causing accident.
Appeal and cross objections are disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.