BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CACHAR: SILCHAR: ASSAM

Transcription

1 1 BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CACHAR: SILCHAR: ASSAM Present: Shri B. Debnath, B.Com, LLM, AJS. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar. JUDGMENT IN MAC CASE NO 1471 of 2012 Smti Sukla Das and others... CLAIMANTS V E R S U S 1. Krishna Kanta Roy :Owner cum driver 2. New India Assurance Company Ltd :Insurer of vehicle... OPPOSITE PARTIES APEAREANCE: Shri Rajat Ghosh, Ld Advocate Shri Nikhil Ch. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate :For the claimant :For the OP2 Institution of the case : Date of argument : Date of Judgment : J U D G M E N T 1. Smti Sukla Das and her two minor children brought this claim case under Section 166 MV Act for award of compensation of Rs.20,85,000/- on account of death of her husband Rantu Das due to motor accident took place on at Ramnagar near ISBT. 2. Brief facts brought through the claim petition are as below:- 3. Rantu Das (hereinafter referred as deceased ) was a Carpenter. He was 45 year old. On the fateful date on he reached ISBT by a motor vehicle from his house at Kayasthagram, Karimganj. After getting down from the vehicle at ISBT, Silchar he was proceeding to Silchar town on foot. It was 2 PM on the relevant date of accident. When he reached near the house of Md. Madris Ali Mazumdar the Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. AS-11AC/1091 coming from his backside in very rash and negligent manner knocked down him. As a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH) and admitted as indoor patient but unfortunately on the following day he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter Post Mortem examination on his dead body was conducted. After laps of 20 days a formal FIR has been lodged on by Swapan Kumar Das

2 2 before the Incharge, Traffic Branch, Silchar. The said written FIR has been forwarded by the Incharge, Traffic Branch to the OC, Silchar PS. After giving a GDE No. 134 dated the OC on receiving of the formal FIR registered Silchar PS case No. 215/2012 under Section 279/304 (A) IPC and in course of process prepared Accident Information Report and after completion of investigation submitted Charge Sheet against the driver of the aforesaid Autorickshaw. The said driver has been charge sheeted under Section 279/304(A) IPC. However on receiving the relevant police papers from the police the instant case has been brought against owner-cum-driver of the aforesaid Autorickshaw and also against the New India Assurance Company Limited. New India Assurance Company is the insurer of the aforesaid Autorickshaw. Sri Krishna Kanta Roy is the owner cum driver of the Autorickshaw. The owner cum driver submitted written statement. He stated inter alia that at the time of accident his vehicle was under coverage of insurance with the New India Assurance Company Limited and also he mentioned the policy number and furnished the copy of Insurance Policy. Accordingly owner cum driver sated that if any compensation is awarded the New India Assurance Company is liable to pay the same. The New India Assurance Company in its WS denied all the material facts and prayed before the court to dismiss the claim petition with cost. 4. During hearing the claimant side examined Sukla Das as PW1 and exhibited Accident Information Report vide Ext1, Post Mortem report vide Ext3 and cause of death certificate vide Ext2. The claimant also submitted a certificate to establish the fact of occupation of the deceased vide Ext4 and after conclusion of argument submitted certified copies of FIR, Charge Sheet, Seizure List, MVI report and copy of Post Mortem examination report. The Insurance Company cross-examined the PW1 but did not examine any defence witness. 5. Heard argument of both side s counsels and perused the evidence on record. 6. In this case no independent eye witness examined but PW1 deposed that the deceased was her husband and at the time of accident the deceased was pedestrian but due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle the accident was occurred and ultimately in the hospital her husband died. To establish the fact of injury and dead she exhibited Post Mortem examination report and cause of death certificate. Both the documents are remained unrebuttable in the evidence on record. That is why I have believed the fact that the deceased died on the relevant date as mentioned in evidence and cause of death certificate indicated that the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock resulted from the injuries sustained which are caused by blunt force impact and the injuries are consistent with road traffic accident. The FIR and Charge Sheet also supported the fact that the said injury sustained

3 3 due to motor accident. The police investigated the case and submitted Charge sheet against the driver. The said charge sheet has been accepted because I do not find any cogent ground that the said police papers have been procured collusively. As per charge sheet the OC found material against the owner cum driver of the aforesaid Autorickshaw for driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and causing accident and injury to the deceased for which the deceased died subsequently in the hospital. Therefore aforesaid materials are taken into consideration as reliable and accordingly it is opined that the deceased died due to motor accident and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner cum driver of the aforesaid Autorickshaw. As such the claimants are entitled compensation. 7. Of course in this case the defence plea is that age and occupation of the deceased as mentioned in the claim petition are false and during argument the learned Advocate of the Insurance Company tried to convince this Tribunal that age and occupation of the deceased have not been proved by the claimants. I have gone through the evidence on record. During cross-examination the PW1 stated as below:- I have not submitted any voter list to prove the age of my husband. It is not a fact that I have intentionally withheld the submission of relevant documents to suppress the real age of claimant. 8. The evidence on record stated that no material adduced by the claimant side to establish the age of the deceased. The Insurance Company took a plea that the deceased was 55 years old at the time of accident. But no material supplied to justify the submission. In this case when no evidence available on record I have taken the age mentioned the Post Mortem examination report. The Post Mortem examination report is Ext3. In that report age has been mentioned 45 years. Therefore the said age has been taken into consideration to select the multiplier from the table given in Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) as The claimant stated that the deceased was Carpenter and his monthly income is Rs In support of the said fact she exhibited a certificate vide Ext4 but the said certificate has been challenged by the OP. In that certificate the President Anguragaon GP stated that the deceased was a Carpenter and his monthly income was Rs But none appeared from the office of the President, Anguragaon GP to prove the document. Moreover how the GP President assessed the monthly income of a carpenter who was earning from an unorganized sector is not clear. What factor has been taken into consideration to assess the income is also not clear. That is why Ext4 can not give any positive

4 4 result in favour of the claimant. Except those documents nothing has been submitted before the court to establish the occupation and income of the deceased. Further I have gone through the cross-examination of PW1. In cross-examination Ext4 is challenged but the fact of his occupation as carpenter remained unrebuttable in the evidence on record. That is why in this case when I have not found any defence evidence on record the fact regarding occupation of the deceased as carpenter has been taken into consideration. Carpenter is a skilled worker. That is why I have taken the monthly earning of the deceased (skilled worker) as Rs.6000 by applying my guesswork. In this case the claimant tried to establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.9000 but income certificate has not been proved. Moreover no convincing evidence adduced to justify the aforesaid income. Hence keeping in mind the monthly income of Rs.6000 I determined Rs.4000 as monthly loss of dependency after deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus annual loss of dependency is Rs The said amount is to be multiplied by multiplier number 14 to get the amount of compensation on fatal accident. Hence the amount of compensation on fatal accident is Rs x 14 = Rs /- (Rupees six lakhs seventy two thousand) only. 10. In addition the claimants are entitled Rs on the head of funeral expenses, Rs.5000 for loss of estate, Rs for loss of consortium and Rs for loss of care and guidance to the minor children. 11. The claimants are also entitled compensation of loss of future prospect at the rate of 30% of the amount of compensation on fatal accident in view of decision of Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC Therefore, compensation on future prospect is awarded Rs / Hence total compensation is Rs = Rs. 11,036,00/-. Accordingly this Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,036,00/- (Rupees eleven lakhs three thousand six hundred) only to the claimants. 14. The New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 11,036,00/- (Rupees eleven lakhs three thousand six hundred) only within 30 days from today to this Tribunal with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the full.

5 5 15. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties immediately. With the above the case is disposed of on contest. Given under my hand and Seal of the court on this the 27 th day of January, Dictated and corrected by me: (Shri B. Debnath) Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Silchar:: Assam (Shri B. Debnath) Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Silchar::Assam Transcribed and typed by me: (Dhruba Jyoti Das) Stenographer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Silchar::Assam