Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Shanti Pramanik & Ors on 2 March, 2016
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee
And
The Hon'ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi
F. M. A. T. No.135 of 2015
With
CAN 1916 of 2015
With
CAN 1917 of 2015
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs.
Smt. Shanti Pramanik & Ors.
For Appellant Insurer : Ms. Sayanti Santra.
For Respondent Claimants : None.
Heard on : 02-03-2016. Judgment on : 02-03-2016. Indira Banerjee, J:
On going through the application for condonation of delay and after hearing Ms. Santra, learned advocate for the appellant insurer, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned.
Let the appeal be registered and proceeded with.
The application being CAN 1916 of 2015 is disposed of.
The appeal is against a judgment and award dated 31st July, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Serampore, Hooghly In Motor Accident Claims Case No.144 of 2010, being an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent claimants', on account of death of the son of the claimant respondent no.1, brother of the claimant respondent no.2, in an accident involving a bus bearing No.WB15-9996 owned by the respondent no.3 and covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the appellant insurer.
Liability under Section 163A is irrespective of any fault or negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person.
The challenge to the award is on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence on the date of the accident. The licence was not valid between 23rd August, 2009 till 24th November, 2010, as the licence had expired on 23rd August, 2009. The licence was apparently renewed with effect from 25th November, 2010.
Since liability under Section 163A, as stated above, is irrespective of fault or negligence and the liability is of the owner or the authorized insurer, a claim cannot be contested on the ground of absence of valid license. The insurer can at best initiate recovery proceedings against the owner.
It is further argued that the respondent claimant no.2 was not dependent on the deceased victim. However, the claimant respondent no.1 was dependent on him. In any case, in terms of the statute, compensation may be claimed by heirs and legal representatives, who need not necessarily be dependent on the victim.
The third ground urged is that the victim being a bachelor, 50% should have been deducted towards his personal and living expenses. This is a case under Section 163A where compensation has to be computed in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Second Schedule provides for deduction of one-third irrespective of whether the victim was a bachelor or a married man. Since compensation has been computed in accordance with the Second Schedule on assessing the income of the deceased victim at Rs.3,000/- per month and multiplying the aforesaid amount by the multiplier "18", applicable to the age group to which the victim belonged at the time of death and adding amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, we are of the view that the award shall be as follows:
Annual Income (Rs.3,000/- X 12) = Rs. 36,000/-
Less: one-third towards = (-) Rs. 12,000/-
personal expenses,
i.e., (Rs.36,000/- ÷ 3)
Rs. 24,000/-
Add: Multiplier '18', applicable = Rs. 4,32,000/-
to age group of 21-25
(Rs.24,000/- X 18)
Add: Funeral expenses = (+) Rs. 2,000/-
Add: Loss of estates = (+) Rs. 2,500/-
Total = Rs.4,36,500/-
The aforesaid amount will be payable only to the respondent no.1, being the mother of the victim, who is a Class-I legal heir.
The award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit of the awarded amount in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 13th January, 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4897-4898 of 2014 (Smt. Neeta W/O Kallappa Kadolkar and others Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur) and Surti Gupta Vs. United India Assurance Co. and another, reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 571, where the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum only, instead of 9% per annum on the compensation amount, as per the principles laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy.
The amount awarded by us, inclusive of interest, shall be deposited in the learned Tribunal within forty-five days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
It will be open to the appellant insurer to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made in this Court.
The appeal and all connected applications are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
( Indira Banerjee, J. ) I agree.
( Sahidullah Munshi, J. ) debajyoti.