Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Chandi Banerjee & Anr on 6 January, 2015
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Tapash Mookherjee
F.M.A. 4444 of 2014
(CAN 1747 of 2014)
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
-Versus-
Smt. Chandi Banerjee & Anr.
For the Appellant/
Insurance Company : Mr. Afroze Alam.
For the Respondent/
Claimant : Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy. Heard on: 6th January, 2015. Judgement on: 6th January, 2015. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. :-
This miscellaneous appeal is directed against an Award passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, 1st Court, Burdwan on 23rd September, 2013 in M.A.C. Case No. 03 of 2012 at the instance of the Insurance Company.
Here is the case where the claimant applied for compensation on account of death of her son who died in a motor accident on 28th November, 2011. The victim was the Khalasi of a Truck. He was a bachelor. At the time of his death, he was aged about 26 years.
The claimant applied for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Following the structured formula framed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 3,60,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the said application till recovery of the compensation amount. Such payment was assessed by the Learned Tribunal by accepting the multiplier of 18 and the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month.
In this appeal, the Appellant/Insurance Company has not disputed the income of the deceased as claimed in the claim petition. The age of the victim at the time of his death is also not disputed. The dispute is with regard to the selection of the multiplier. According to the appellant, the multiplier should have been selected by the Learned Tribunal by considering the age of the applicant viz. the mother of the victim. The mother of the victim was aged about 59 years at the time of the death of the victim. Thus, the Insurance Company claims that multiplier of 8 should have been selected in the instance case for assessing compensation payable to the applicant.
Mr. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company has cited the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his aforesaid contention:-
1. In the case of Ramesh Singh & Anr. -vs- Satbir Singh & Anr. reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 667,
2. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Shyam Singh & Ors.
reported (2011) 7 Supreme Court Case, 65.
Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the claimant referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mansoor & Anr. -vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014) 3 WBLR (SC) 898 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act held that the multiplier should be selected on the basis of the age of the victim and not with reference to the age of the parents in case the victim died bachelor.
We have considered the respective contentions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and the decisions cited at the bar.
Here is the case where we find that the claimant applied for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though there were some error in the second schedule framed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act but there is no doubt that the assessment of compensation was suggested on the basis of the multiplier to be selected with reference to the age of the victim.
In the structure formula, we do not find any reference of selection of the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant. As such, we hold that while assessing the compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier should be selected with reference to the age of the victim and not with reference to the age of the claimant.
The Learned Tribunal, in our considered view did not commit any illegality in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant by selecting the multiplier of 18 in the instant case as the victim at the time of his death, was aged about 26 years.
We do not find any apparent illegality in the order impugned. The appeal thus, fails.
We are informed by Mr. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that sum of Rs. 25,000/- being statutory deposit for maintaining the appeal has already been deposited with the Learned Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court.
The Appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit. The appellant/Insurance Company is thus, directed to deposit the entire awarded compensation together with interest in terms of the award passed by the Learned Tribunal, with the Tribunal to the credit of the claimant within four weeks from date with liberty to the claimant to withdraw the same upon compliance of all the necessary formalities.
In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the stay application which is deemed to be disposed of.
The application for stay being CAN 1747 of 2014 is thus, deemed to be disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocate for the appellant immediately.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.) dp