Swapna Debnath And Ors vs Suklal Debnath And Ors

This appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking basic enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, by the impugned award dated 16.11.2017 passed in Title Suit (MAC) No.66 of 2017.

Brief facts are as under:

One Goutam Debnath was travelling from Bhubanban to Barjala on his bicycle at about 10.30 in the morning on 28.12.2016. An auto rickshaw coming from the opposite direction collided with the cyclist causing serious injuries. He was shifted to a hospital for treatment. Few days later on 31.12.2016 he expired. The claimants i.e. his widow, unmarried daughter and minor son filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.26,10,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The claims Tribunal held that the driver of the auto rickshaw was solely negligent in causing the accident. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal believed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month from his occupation as a painter. To the said sum, the Tribunal granted escalation of 25% for future income, deducted one-third for the personal expenditure of the deceased and applied a multiplier of 14, look into the age of 45 years of the deceased. To this, the Tribunal added Rs.40,000/- by way of loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.52,500/- towards medical expenditure, to come to a grand total of Rs.10,87,500/-.

Neither the insurance company nor the owner filed appeal against the said Judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal. The question of negligence has, therefore, achieved finality. Only issue in the present appeal is with respect to computation of compensation payable to the claimants. In this context, the claimants had examined Swapna Debnath, widow of the deceased before the Claims Tribunal. In her sworn affidavit, she had stated that the deceased was engaged in colouring work from which he would earn Rs.400/- per day. His monthly income was thus Rs.12,000/-. In the cross-examination of this witness, neither the owner nor the insurance company challenged her declaration that her husband was a skilled worker and regularly doing the job of painting. I must therefore, proceed on such basis. Despite this, the claim of the widow that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/-per month at the time of accident, cannot be accepted in its entirety. Even as a skilled worker though the deceased would be expected to earn Rs.400/- per every day that he did the work, it is difficult to believe that he got work for every single day in the month or even if he would get such work continuously, he would be able to do the work every single day without rest. A fair assessment of his income therefore, could be Rs.10,000/- per month which would be approximated by considering 25 days of actual working in a month @ Rs.400/- per day. To this, there would be increased by 25% as per the decisions of Supreme Court in case 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. This would bring his prospective monthly income to Rs.12,500/-. Look into 3 dependents, one-third would be deducted for the personal expenditure of the deceased living a net of Rs.8,333/- (rounded off to Rs.8,350/-) per month or Rs.1,00,200/- per annum, applying a multiplier of 14, loss of dependency benefits would come to Rs.14,02,800/-.

A sum of Rs.70,000/- would be awarded for compensation under the conventional heads as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

Amount of Rs.52,500/- for medical expenditure awarded by the Tribunal would be maintained. One head under which the Tribunal omitted to award compensation is pain, shock and suffering. Though this is a fatal case, as noted earlier, the deceased survived after accident for about 4 days. During such period, he was admitted in the hospital and treated for serious bodily injuries. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is, therefore, awarded for pain, shock and suffering.

The total compensation payable to the claimants would thus work out as under:

1.

Loss of dependency benefits

Rs. 14,02,800/-

2.

Compensation under conventional heads

Rs. 70,000/-

3.

Medical expenditure

Rs. 52,500/-

4.

Pain, shock and suffering

Rs. 50,000/-

Total -

Rs.15,75,300/-

The Claims Tribunal having awarded Rs.10,87,500/-, the claimants would receive additional compensation of Rs.4,87,800/-rounded off to Rs.4,88,000/- (Rupees Four lakh eighty eight thousand). Such additional compensation would carry simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till actual payment. Such compensation with interest shall be deposited by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months from today. Upon such deposit, 70% thereof shall be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years. The claimants would receive periodic interest accruing thereon. Remaining 30% would be released in favour of the claimants. Upon completion of the period of 5 years, the invested amount shall also be released in favour of the claimants. The apportionment between the claimants would be in the ratio of 60%:20%:20% between the widow, daughter and son respectively of the deceased.

Appeal allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Send down the lower Court records forthwith.