AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement in compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala by impugned award dated 10.10.2018 in T.S. (MAC) No.183 of 2015.
Brief facts are as under:
On 07.03.2015, one Suman Modak was driving his motor cycle. At about 1.45 in the afternoon at Chandrapur near Rajashree Motors, Assam-Agartala road, another motor cycle coming from the opposite direction collided with the said motor cyclist, causing fatal injuries. His widow, minor daughter and mother therefore filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.47,10,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the motor cyclist, who had collided with the deceased. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal held that the age of the deceased was 32 years which was on the basis of the Adhar card produced by the claimants. Regarding his income, the claimant No.1 widow of the deceased had deposed that the deceased was engaged as a driver of the truck earning Rs.15,000/- per month. His driving license was produced on record. However, in absence of any further evidence of his occupation, the Tribunal held that he was an unskilled labourer and assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month on the date of accident. The Tribunal thereafter granted 40% of future rise, applied a multiplier of 16 and deducted one-third for his personal expenditure to arrive at a loss of dependency benefit of Rs.8,96,000/-. To this, Tribunal added Rs.70,000/- towards the conventional heads and granted a total compensation of Rs.9,71,000/- by adding a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges.
Appearing for the claimants, learned counsel Mr. Saugat Datta submitted that the widow of the deceased had also deposed orally that he was engaged as a driver. The Tribunal therefore committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased as an unskilled labourer.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of any reliable evidence of the occupation of the deceased, the Tribunal correctly assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month on the date of accident.
The evidence on record would suggest that the driving license of the deceased produced by the claimants was for light motor vehicle. It is therefore hard to believe that the claimant was engaged as a driver of a truck which is a heavy motor vehicle. However, one need not discard the evidence of the widow of the deceased that he was engaged as a driver and not as an unskilled labourer. Considering such facts thus, in the year 2015, income of Rs.7,500/- per month can be safely assessed. Giving 40% rise for future income, the prospective income of the deceased would come to Rs.10,500/- per month or Rs.1,26,000/- per annum. One-third thereof would come to Rs.42,000/-. Setting aside such amount for his personal expenditure, Rs.84,000/- per annum would be the loss of dependency benefits for the claimants. Multiplier of 16 looking to the age of the deceased as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 would bring the figure loss of dependency benefits at Rs.13,44,000/-. Rs.70,000/- would be added towards the conventional heads bringing the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.14,14,000/-. The Claims Tribunal having already granted Rs.9,71,000/-, the claimants would receive additional compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- in this appeal. Such additional compensation shall carry simple interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till actual depositing before the Tribunal. The insurance company-respondent No.2 would deposit additional compensation with proportionate cost and interest before the Claims Tribunal within 2 (two) months from today. Upon such deposit, the same would be apportioned in the ratio of 60%:20%:20% in favour of the widow, minor daughter and mother respectively of the deceased. Of the total amount that the insurance company may deposit, 30% would be disbursed in favour of the claimants in above proportion. Remaining 70% would be invested in a nationalized bank in fixed deposit for a period of 3 years in cumulative interest scheme. At the end of the said period, the amount invested with accrued interest would be paid over to the claimants in the same proportion as provided above.
The appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Records may be transmitted to the Trial Court.