United India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors. vs Rita Rani Sutradhar And Ors.

[1] Heard Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC. App. No.78 of 2014 and for the respondent No.1 in C.O (F.A) No.11 of 2014 as well as Ms. S. Deb Gupta and Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents No.1 to 3 in MAC. App. No.78 of 2014 and for the cross objectors No.1 to 3 in C.O (F.A) No.11 of 2014.

[2] Both the appeal and the cross objection being MAC. APP. No.78 of 2014 [United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Rita Rani Sutradhar and others] and C.O.(F.A) No.11 of 2014 [Smt. Rita Rani Sutradhar and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment as those arise from the judgment and award dated 17.02.2014 delivered in T.S(MAC) No.01 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, West Tripura, Agartala.

[3] The findings which are not in dispute in this appeal is that on 20.12.2010, one Himangshu Sutradhar while returning home by ridding a scooter bearing registration No.TR-01-7016 met with an accident and succumbing to the injuries, he was declared dead when he was rushed to Bishalgarh hospital. But what the claimant-respondents/cross objectors have asserted is that as the scooter was dashed by the truck-vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25C-6286 coming on the left side of the road which was being treaded by the said scooter, Himangshu Sutradhar, the victim, suffered fatal injuries. The appellant in MAC. App. No.78 of 2014 is the insurer of the said truck vehicle.

[4] Mr. S. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted that while deciding the issue No.(ii) i.e. 'whether the claimant petitioners are entitled to get any compensation due to the said death, if so what would be quantum of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same'- the tribunal has come to a wrong finding in respect of the cause of death and the income of the deceased person. Mr. Datta Choudhury, learned counsel having referred to the post-mortem report has vehemently submitted that the forensic expert did not make any observations as regards the nature of the accident. However, they have recorded that the injuries were received from the accident. Since the words road traffic or motor vehicle are not available, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has contended that the injuries therefore cannot be inferred to have been from the road traffic accident.

[5] Before dilating further on the submission, this court would like to refer the post-mortem report [Exbt.3] wherein, under the column 'information furnished by the police' it has been recorded that 'on receipt of written requisition from Dr. S.C. Biswas, M.O., BLG SD hospital, Himangshu Sutradhar was brought dead to the hospital to a RTA occurring in Parimal Chowmuhani near bridge under Bishramganj P.S.' The word accident, therefore, has to be read in reference to the information furnished by the police and as such, this court does not find any substance in the said objection. Further, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel referring to the second ground of objection has submitted that while determining the income of the deceased, the tribunal has overlooked that PW-2 in his deposition has stated that the deceased used to pay him Rs.5,000/-per month and PW-2 has stated that the monthly income of the deceased was about Rs.15,000/-. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, the monthly income of the deceased should have been determined at Rs.10,000/- per month. The said submission however cannot be accepted by this court inasmuch as the appellant in MAC App. No.78 of 2014 did not cross-examine PW-2 on that aspect. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- as is appearing in his examination-in-chief has to be treated as the net income of the deceased. It is not an unrealistic sum. Therefore, this court does not find any substance in the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

[6] In the cross-objection, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors initially has raised the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. In view of what has been held by this court above, this objection does not survive for further consideration.

Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has proceeded further on other grounds of objection. According to the cross objectors, the age of the deceased has been wrongly determined by ignoring the school certificate and basing on the post-mortem report. If the school certificate is made the basis for determining of the age, the age would be marginally above 42 years. However, in the post- mortem examination reports, the age has been recorded as 48 years. The age recorded in the post-mortem report cannot be relied for determining the age. Rather, the school certificate is comparatively more reliable document. In view of this, the objection in this regard as raised by the cross objector is accepted. The age of the deceased is accepted as 42 years and hence, the compensation is required to be re-assessed. However, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has further submitted that the quantum as determined for giving consortium or the love and affection is very meagre. This also requires interference from this court. True it is that the recent trend in granting the consortium for the wife is towards higher scale. In some cases, the consortium as granted is to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, the tribunal may exercise within a limited ambit. The loss of consortium for a young widow and an aged widow may be variable. In this case, according to this court, the loss consortium should be raised to Rs.50,000/- and loss of love and affection be Rs.25,000/- each for the claimant-respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Madhu Sutradhar and Jadhu Sutradhar. The compensation is reassessed.

The monthly income of the deceased is retained at Rs.15,000/- and added to that amount is 30% loss of future prospect. Thus, the monthly income index becomes Rs.19,500/-. The annual income, therefore, would be Rs.2,34,000/-. The multiplier in view of the age of 42 years shall be '14'. The index would, therefore, raise to Rs.32,76,000/-. From the said amount 1/3rd has to be deducted [Rs.32,76,000- Rs.10,92,000/-] to have the cross of dependency at Rs.21,84,000/-. A sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid exclusively to the claimant-cross objector No.1, Rs.25,000/- to the claimant-cross objector No.2 and another sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant-cross objector No.3. An additional sum of Rs.10,000/- as determined by the tribunal for the funeral expenses shall be with those components of the compensation. Thus, the total compensation comes at [Rs.21,84,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- +Rs.10,000/-] =Rs.22,94,000/- [Rupees Twenty Two lacs Ninety Four thousand]. It is to be mentioned here that the amount as determined as the loss of dependency and funeral expenses be equally shared by the claimant-cross objectors whereas they would be exclusively entitled to the amount as determined by this court as loss of consortium or love and affection. The said award and every component as decided by this court shall carry interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 03.01.2011, when the claim petition was filed in the tribunal. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the said award within a period of 2(two) months from the day when a copy of this judgment and order will be available to the insurer-appellant, in the tribunal on deducting the sum that they have already paid. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for United India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer-appellant, has submitted that as per the order dated 08.07.2016 passed in CM. App. No.413 of 2014 arising out of MAC App. No.78 of 2014, the insurance company has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.10.2016. It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company that the said amount had been paid to the cross objectors in terms of the order passed by this court. Since the cross objectors are all major, there is no question of managing the share in the term deposit by the tribunal. As soon as the deposit would be made, the cross objectors shall be allowed to withdraw their amount from the tribunal. A sum of Rs.25,000/- as deposited by the appellant for preferring the appeal on 04.06.2017 shall be disbursed to the cross objectors in equal share.

Thus, the cross objection is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no further order for costs.

Draw the award accordingly. Thereafter, send down the records.

A copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the parties through their counsel.