The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mayanti Deka and Anr

ORDER Date : 15-06-2023 Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. D. D. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.04.2022, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'MACT') No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC. Case No.812/2015.

¶3Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court had passed the order dated 28.04.2022 in MAC. Case No.812/2015, and as per order awarded a compensation of Rs.5,37,833/- (Rupees Five lakhs thirty-seven thousand eight hundred thirty-three) only, by directing the present appellant/Company to pay the awarded amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The only issue raised in the present appeal is that the learned Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup (M), has considered only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased though it is an admitted fact that the deceased was unmarried at the time of his death.

¶4It is submitted that the claim has been filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, therefore, the compensation should be awarded on the basis of the structured formula and same cannot be awarded, without following the structured formula indicated in the Second Schedule. But, the learned Page No.# 3/4 Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup (M), while assessing compensation did not follow the formula prescribed in the second Schedule of this Act.

¶5More so, it is an admitted fact that the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of death and deceased comes under the age group of 26-30 years. So, multiplier would have been 17, as per view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Vermal Case. But, the learned Trial Court applied 18 as multiplier. As such the assessment made by the Court is not tenable and same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶6In this context, Ms. D. D. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7So considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and also considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried at the time of incident, I find it justified to deduct the 50% from the income of the deceased and also to assess the award by considering the multiplier as 17.

¶8Accordingly, considering the multiplier as 17 years and after deducting 50 % of his income along with other expenditure, the claimant/respondent is entitle for loss of estate of Rs.2,500/-and funeral expenses including other incidental expenses is Rs.2,000/-. The calculation is shown below:-

50% of the income - Rs.20,000/- (40,000/2) Multiplier - 17 x 20,000/- Page No.# 4/4 Loss of estate - Rs.2,500/- Loss of Funeral expenses - Rs.2,000/- Total loss of dependency

-Rs.3,40,000/-(Rs.20,000 x 17) Total -Rs,3,44,500/-

Hence, the total award amount will be 3,44,500/-.

¶9In terms of above, this present appeal is allowed.

¶10The present appellant is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,44,500/-(Rupees three lakhs fouty-four thousand five hundred) only to the present respondent along with the interest @ of 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition. Further, the appellant is also directed to fixed deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only, in any nationalized Bank for 5(five) years and the interest accrued on the deposited amount will be paid to the claimant/respondent. The appellant is hereby directed to make the payment within 2(two) months.

¶11The Statutory deposit of amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) only be released in favour of the appellant/Company.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010148052022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oMACApp./430/2022o THEoORIENTALoINSURANCEoCO.oLTD.o AoCOMPANYoREGISTEREDoUNDERoTHEoCOMPANIESoACT,oREPRESENTEDo BYoTHEoREGIONALoMANAGER,oGUWAHATIo,oULUBARI,oKAMRUPoMo ASSAM VERSUSo MAYANTIoDEKAoANDoANR.o W/OoSRIoSURENoDEKAo RESIDENToOFoKALITAPARA,oPOoKHAKAIPARA,oDISToDARRANG,oASSAM 2:SRIoSAMEERoDEVoNATH oS/OoDHIRENoDEVoNATH o RESIDENToOFoHOUSEoNO.o121 oBISHNUPURoMAINoROAD oBISHNUPATH oBYEoLANEo2 oGOPINATHoNAGAR oPSoBHARALUMUKH oDISToKAMRUPoMoASSAMo78101o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oSoKoGOSWAMIo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMSoDoDoROYoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA