Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts leading to this miscellaneous appeal are that the deceased Balaram Mahato along with his son Animesh Kumar had stopped his motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-10AK-5762 in the evening of 26.02.2014 at Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Govindpur, all of a sudden, a truck bearing registration No.WB-23B-0772, which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently came and dashed from behind to Balaram Mahato and his son along with motorcycle, as a result of which, Balaram Mahato and his son both sustained injury. The motorcycle was also badly damaged. Both were rushed to Jashlok Hospital, Govindpur. From there, his son Animesh Kumar was referred to Pragati Nursing Home, Saraidhela and Balaram Mahato was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad, where he was declared dead. The FIR of the said accident was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No.112 of 2014 on 03.03.2014 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the truck bearing registration No.WB-23B- 0772. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the truck, namely, Satyendra Singh. The deceased was LIC Agent and was 50 years old on the date and time of accident. He was earning 15,58,434.45/- per year. Hence, compensation was

9. Aggrieved from the impugned award dated 28.11.2016, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant Sriram General Insurance Company Limited.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

-4- Misc. Appeal No.240 of 2017

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the deceased was a LIC agent and after his death the renewal commission has been receiving by his wife claimant, who is also the LIC Commission Agent since the very lifetime of her husband. Indeed, there was no loss of dependency, as such, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on perverse finding, therefore, contended to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned award.

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayesha Sekh reported in (2015) 1 TN MAC 603 (DB) (Cal.).

16. On this very issue, on behalf of the appellant in oral evidence adduced altogether two prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Kavita Devi and P.W.-3, Samant Kumar Patra. P.W.-1, Kavita Devi, in her examination-in-chief, has deposed that her husband was 50 years old. He was LIC Agent in Jodaphatak Raod, Dhanbad Branch-4, LIC and he had been doing work for last 24 years. He was very diligent and his income was enhancing every year on account of the very reason, Hazaribag Division, LIC has made him member of Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT). If he had not died, his income would have been enhanced. The claimant No.2, Priti, her daughter studying in Asansol Engineering College and the claimant No.3, Animesh Kumar, her son was the student of R.S. Mode College, Govindpur. In the very last year, when her husband died in accident, in the year 2013-14 the annual income of her husband was Rs.15,58,434.45/- and Rs.1,55,834/- was given income tax by him in one year. In cross-examination, this witness says that she is LIC Agent prior to the death of her husband. Her annual income is Rs.3 lakhs and she is also income tax payee. Her father-in-law was in service in BCCL, who had retired five years ago receiving pension. Her

- 11 - Misc. Appeal No.240 of 2017 was increased in the financial year 2012-13 amounting Rs.2,38,965/-. If he had been alive, his income would have been increased. This witness in cross-examination says that the renewal commission is payable to the wife after the death the income of the LIC agent every year. 16.2 From the meticulous analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, admittedly the deceased was LIC Agent and he had been paying premium Rs.33 lakhs per year to the LIC Company, therefore, he was made member of MDRT. In view of the testimony of P.W.-3, Samant Kumar Patra, Development Officer, LIC of India Branch-4, Dhanbad the income of the LIC vary every year and he has also deposed that from the financial year in comparison to 2012-13, the income of deceased in financial year 2013-14, in which, his death was caused on account of accident increased to the tune of Rs.2,38,965/-. 16.3 The bone of contention between the appellant and respondent is that the renewal commission, which the wife is still getting after the death of husband, the same could have been deducted from the income of the deceased or not.