High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 11 GAU CK 0007

Safatun Nessa And 7 Ors. vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 3 November 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No. 156 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 493 words
1.

Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Dutta, appearing for the review petitioners assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate. Also heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Goswami appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.

2.

This review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 114 of the said Code pertains to the judgment and order dated 26.05.2022 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No.111/2011.

3.

On 16.08.2007, the deceased Alim Uddin Laskar was proceeding to Aizwal by driving his vehicle bearing registration No.AS-24-6465 loaded with cement. On its way at Bualpuy, the truck capsized on the road and fell into a gorge due to mechanical defects. Because of the said accident, Alim Uddin Laskar died on the spot. He was 38 years old at that time.

4.

On the basis of a claim petition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of  Rs. 5,21,500/- as compensation along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition until realization.

5.

This Court dismissed the appeal.

6.

The review petition has been filed upon the following grounds:

(1) Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% to the actual income of the deceased as future prospect.

(2) Considering the number of legal heirs, left behind by the deceased, instead of 1/3rd, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/5th

(3) Under conventional head, the Tribunal should have awarded  Rs. 70,000/-.

(4) Instead of 6% per annum, the rate of interest should have been 9% per annum.

7.

I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

8.

This Court is of the opinion that the ground nos.1, 2 and 3 are curable by a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Therefore, the review petition is allowed with following modifications:

Monthly income of the deceased —

Rs. 4,000/-

Deduction towards personal expenses 1/5th —  Rs. 800/- of  Rs. 4,000/- (-) Therefore,

Rs. 4,000/-

-  Rs.  800/-

Rs. 3,200/-

Add future prospect 40%

+  Rs. 1,280/-

Rs. 4,480/-

Total loss of dependency —  Rs. 4,480 X 12 X 16 (multiplier)

Rs. 8,60,160/-

Add= Loss of Estate –

Funeral Expenses

Consortium

+  Rs. 15,000/-

+  Rs. 15,000/-

+  Rs. 40,000/-

Rs. 9,30,160/-

9.

So far as the prayer for enhancement of the rate of interest to 9% per annum, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal exercised judicial mind while awarding the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. This is not an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore cannot be cured by an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

10.

Now, the petitioner will be entitled to receive Rs.9,30,160/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

11.

With the aforesaid observations, the review petition stands disposed of.