,
Rabindranath Samanta, J",
1. This appeal is against the judgment and award dated 20.01.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter be",
referred to as the Tribunal), 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 25 of 2007 arising out of M.A.C. Case No. 396 of 2006. By the",
judgment the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,90,568/- in favour of the claimants and directed the respondent No.1, The National",
Insurance Company Limited to pay the awarded amount to the claimants within two months, failing which the total awarded sum shall carry interest at",
the rate of 6% per annum till realisation of the entire amount of money.,
2. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants assail the impugned award in this",
appeal.,
3. The facts emanating from the claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and which are necessary for adjudication may be,
adumbrated as under:,
On 1st October, 2006 at about 00:30 hrs while Raghunath Murmu of Village Khagra, P.O- Tentulmuri, P.S- KGP(L), Paschim Medinipur and his",
friend Kalipada Dolai were talking with other two persons on the extreme left side of NH-60 Road keeping the motorcycle by the side of the road,
near Sankua over Bridge, at that time one Ambassador bearing registration No. WMB-6832 coming from Kharagpur Chowrangi side with excessive",
speed dashed those persons with great force. As a result, Raghunath Murmu sustained deep blood injuries on his head and died on the spot. Other",
persons who were with him also sustained deep blood injuries on their person. The injured persons were taken to hospital for their medical treatment.,
4. The victim Raghunath Murmu died at the age of 26 years.,
5. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.,
6. On the allegations of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, one Kharagpur (L) Police Station Case No. 217 of 2006 under",
Sections 279/337/338/304A/427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.,
7. The victim was a teacher of a primary school named Arun Khagra Prathamik School and he used to earn Rs.6,800/- per month.",
8. The claimant No.1 Smt. Namita Murmu is the widow and claimant No. 2 Smt. Kalandi Murmu is the mother of the victim Raghunath. Owing to,
untimely death of the victim, the claimants fell in untold financial crisis.",
9. At the time of the accident the aforesaid offending vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the respondent No.1 herein.",
10. Under the aforesaid facts the claimants sought for compensation of Rs. 10,75,000/-.",
11. However, the respondent No.1, the Insurance Company contested the claim case by filing a written statement wherein it denied the",
allegations/averments as made in the claim application and sought for dismissal of the case.,
12. To establish their case the claimants examined three witnesses namely claimant No.2 Kalindi Murmu (P.W.1), Ganesh Kisku (P.W. 2), an eye",
witness and Jagadish Chandra Jana (P.W.3), the Resort Teacher of Kharagpur Circle. Besides, some documents relied upon by the claimants were",
marked as Exhibits 1 to 11.,
13. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the part of the Insurance Company.,
14. Upon hearing learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned,
Tribunal on disposing of the issues framed by it partly allowed the claim case and awarded the compensation as stated hereinbefore.,
15. It appears that the learned Tribunal on assessment of ocular evidence of P.W. 2 Ganesh Kisku, eye-witness and on consideration of the FIR and",
the charge-sheet in connection with the aforesaid Kharagpur (L) PS Case No. 217 of 2006 under Sections 279/337/338/304A/427, IPC has recorded",
the finding that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident took place. On analysing the oral,
evidence of P.W. 2 I concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal that due to the laches on the part of the driver the victim met with the accident,
and he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. It is not in dispute and as I find from the Insurance policy on record the,
offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time when the accident took place.,
16. Now, the question which falls for consideration is whether the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal requires to be enhanced on",
modification of the award.,
17. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that considering the age of the victim multiplier 18 will be adopted, but, the learned Tribunal",
wrongly used the multiplier 17 to compute the compensation. Learned Counsel by referring to the decision in the case of National Insurance Company,
Limited â€"Vs- Pranay Sethi and Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 submits that as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court the claimants,
are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on the heads of Loss of Estate (Rs.15,000/-) and Funeral Expenses ( Rs.15,000/-). Besides, the claimant No.1 being the",
widow of the victim is entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- as consortium. But, the learned Tribunal computed on such heads erroneously.",
18. As it appears from the evidence on record, especially from the Check Register of Payments to Primary School Teachers (Exhibit 8), the learned",
Tribunal has rightly held that after necessary deduction of P.Tax etc. the monthly income of the victim was Rs.6,438/-. It is evident from the",
documentary evidence on record that the date of birth of the victim was 27.03.1981. That being so, on the date of the accident the deceased was aged",
about 24 years 8 months. In the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,
the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 42 has held that multiplier 18 will be adopted for the victim who is within the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21,
to 25 years. In view of the decision of Sarla Verma supra, adopting of the multiplier 17 by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. Since the victim left",
behind his mother and widow as two legal heirs, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be to the extent of 1/3rd in",
terms of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 30 of Sarla Verma.,
19. In the decision in Pranay Sethi supra the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph 59.3 that while determining the income, an addition of",
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40",
years, should be made. As it is evinced from the documentary evidence i.e. Service Book and Check Register of Payments to Primary School",
Monthly Income=,"Rs. 6,438/-
Yearly Income (Rs. 6438 x 12)=,"Rs. 77,256/-
Future Prospects (Rs. 50% of Rs.77,256)=","Rs. 38,628/-
Total loss of yearly income = ( Rs.77,256 +
Rs.38,628)","Rs. 1,15,884/-
Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd = ( Rs.1,15,884 - Rs.
38,628)","Rs. 77,256/-
Adopting multiplier 18 considering =
the age of the victim as of 24 years and 8 months (
Rs.77,256 x 18)","Rs. 13,90,608/-
General Damages on conventional =
heads, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses for the
Claimants (Rs.30,000) and on Loss of Consortium of
(Rs.40,000) to the claimant No.1","Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation=
( Rs.13,90,608+Rs.70,000)","Rs. 14,60,608/-
34. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.",
