BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BARPETA

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BARPETA PRESENT Sri A.F.A. BORA, (A.J.S.) MEMBER, M.A.C.T, BARPETA. M.A.C. Case No. 250/2011 Maleka Khatun... Claimant No.1 Asia Begum... Claimant No.2 Khandakar Rasidul Islam... Claimant No.3 Khandakar Rehena Parbin... Claimant No.4 Versus Soleman Ali... O.P. No. 1 & 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd.... O.P No. 3 Appearance Mr. H. B. Das :- Learned advocate for the claimant. Mr. H. K. Das :- Learned advocate for the O.P. No. 3 Argument heard on : Judgement delivered on : JUDGMENT 1) This motor accident claim case has arisen from the petition No. 2195/11 filed by the claimant Maleka Khatun and three others u/sec 166 of the M.V.Act 1988, praying for grant of compensation on account of death of Late Khandakar Afazuddin Ahmed. 2) The facts of the case as reveals from the claim petition is that Maleka Khatun and Asia khatun wife of Late Khandakar Afazuddin Ahmed and two children of the deceased namely Khandakar Rasidul Islam and Khandakar Rehena Parbin have filed an application u/sec 166 of the M.V.Act 1988 claiming compensation amounting of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs) for the reason of death of Late Khandakar Afazuddin Ahmed in a motor vehicular accident that took place at Banglipara Chariali. 3) It is in the petition that on 30/5/2011 while deceased was proceeding from his home towards the Garemari Market ridding on a bicycle and when he cont. 2

2 -2- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 reached the Banglipara Chariali the van bearing registation No. AS-15C/3095 which was coming from opposite driection in a very high speed, hit the deceased and dragged him over the road. In the result the victim sustained serious injuries on his person. The victim was immediately taken to the FAAMC & Hospital, Barpeta for treatment but doctors of the said hospital referred the victim to the GMCH, Guwahati for better treatment. The doctors of the GMCH, Guwahati dcelared him dead in the hospital. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of driving on the part of the driver of the said van. In respect of the aforesaid incident of Motor vehicular accident a case was registered vide Barpeta P.S case No. 499/2011 u/sec 279/304(A) IPC. 4) In the claim petition one Seleman Ali, O.P. No.1 & O.P No. 2, the owner and the driver of the vehicle and National Insurance Co. Ltd., the O. P. No.3 are made opp.parties. 5) After received of notices the O.P. No.3, the insurance company appeared and filed written statement and contested the petition. O.P. No.1 and 2 have not contested case and the case proceeded ex-parte. 6) Now the claim petition is contested by the insurance company i.e. O.P. No.3 and in the written statement it is stated that there is no cause of action of ths suit and the present claim petition is not maintainable against the Opp. Party. That the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. That the opp. Parties is not at all liable tom pay any compensation to the claimant. That the claimants are not legal heir of the deceased. That the claimant No. 1 and 2 are not legally married wife of the victim. After hearing both the parties the following issues were framed :- ISSUES i) Whether vehicular accident took place on 30/5/11 at about 10:30 A.M at Banlipara P.W.D. Road involving the vehicle No. AS-15C/3095? ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash nad negligent driving of the said vehicle and the victim khandakar afazuddin Ahmed, the husband of claimant No. 1 died in the said accident? iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get a compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? REASONS AND DECISION ISSUE NO. 1 7) The claimants have examined herself and another witness. I have cont. 3

3 -3- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 gone through the documents produced by the claimants and Exhibit 1 is the Accident Information Report in form 54 which established the fact that as per Barpeta P.S case No. 499/11 a police case was registered and the date and time of the accident is similar as in the claim petition. The registration number of the vehicle is also corroborated by the Accident Information Report and policy number of the insurance company is found same with the claim petition. Since the contested O.P. have not established any fact adverse to the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and it is proved with the registration of a case as per Accident Information Report that offending vehicle was involved in a motor vehicular accident for offences u/sec 279/304(A) IPC. It can be held safely that vehicle No. AS-15C-3095 was involved in the motor accident at the place and time as indicated in the claim petition for rash and negligent manner of driving. 8) The evidence of P.W.1 and the document proved as Exhibit 2 proved it further that with reference to the aforesaid police case the post mortem was conducted over the body of a person namely Khandakar Afazuddin Ahmed and cause of death was due to coma as a result of head injury sustained as described. All injuries were ante mortem and caused by blunt force impact. Further evidence of P.W.1 Maleka Khatun reveals the undisputed fact that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and the cause of death of Khandakar Afazuddin Ahmed was owing to Motor vehicular accident and nothing else. Abdul Jalil P.W2 make it futher clear that deceased was contractor and agriculturist who died in a motor vehicular accident. The evidence on record together proved that the death of deceased was caused in a motor vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle as such issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative. ISSUES NO. 2 AND 3 9) Both the issues are taken jointly for decision. It is proved by the claimants that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the O.P. No.3 and contested O.P have not denied their policy issued in favour of the vehicle of the O.P. No.2. The accident was not denied and as such it appears from the record that the death of the husband of claimant No.1 and 2 and the father of claimant No. 3 and 4 has been died in motor accident that took place on the fateful evening at Bnglipara. As such since there is no evidence contrary to the fact about death of the husband of the claimant No.1 involving the present vehicle, it can be safely held that claimants are entitled to get compensation from the cont. 4

4 -4- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 National Insurance company as the vehicle was duly insured with them (O.P. No.3) which has been corroborated by the Accident Information Report. The Accident Information report reveals the policy number as /31/ 11/ valid up to 28/4/12. Accordingly it is decided that O.P No. 3 is liable for pay the compensation. 10) Now the question that requires to be determined is to what extent the claimants are entitled for compensation. In the present case the income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs. 8,000/- per month working as a contractor and agriculturist.the age is about 48 years as mentioned in the claim petition. However there is a Transfer/Leaving certificate regarding age of the deceased from where it can be determined the age of the deceased as 48 years at the time of his death as date of birth was recorded as The claimant have as such proved the age of the deceased and in the present case the age of the deceased is higher than the age of the claimants and it will be taken for determining the multiplier for the purpose of computation of compensation to be paid towards loss of dependency to the dependants. 11) But there is no specific prove as to the income of the deceased. During cross examination P.W.1 admits that deceased was a contractor and agriculturist Rs. 8,000 per month and he was 48 years old at the time of his death. At the same time P.W.2 one Abdul Jalil deposed that deceased was class-i contractor and at the same time was an agriculturist. But claimant have neither submitted any document to prove the regular income of the deceased nor adduced any papers relating to landed property and income certificate of the deceased from the appropriate authority. In absense of any definite prove of income we can go for notional income for determining the loss of dependency. 12) When the income of the deceased is not conclusive and reliable the notional income should have been considered and determined on the basis of available evidence. For that we can take reliance of a reported case law 2008 (2) T.A.C 394 (S.C) Laxmi Devi and others petitioner vs Mohammad Tabbar and another respondent in determining the said case the Hon'ble Apex court further refers the following cases : (I) (2005) 6 S.C 236: 2005 (2) T.A.C 305 (II) (1994) 2 S.C.C 176 : 1994 (1) T.A.C 323 (III) (1996) 4 S.C.C 362 : 1996 (2) T.A.C 286 (IV) 1942 (1) All. E.R 657 (H.L) cont. 5

5 -5- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 (V) (1951) 2 All. E.R ) Again in jagadish Prasad Agarwal Vs Upendra Singh reported in 2012 (2) GLT 15, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi Vs Md. Tabbar 2008 (2) TAC 394 (S.C) was pleased to accept revised notional Rs. 3,000/- per month. 14) If we consider the principle laid down in the aforesaid case then in the present situation it is to be considered that the notional income of the deceased will be Rs. 3,000/- per month. In that view of the matter the annual income of the deceased will be 3000 X 12 = Rs. 36, ) In the case law Sarala Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation & another, it is observed that the multiplier method involved the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. In our present case in hand the age of the deceased is 48 years and the age of the claimants No. 1 and 2 are 46 years and 42 years as per evidence in affidavit. In this case the age of the deceased is higher and same is taken for determining the multiplier. If we adopt the principle laid down in reported case law Sarala Verma other vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 years will be 13 in our present case in hand. 16) As per Sarala Verma cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra's case, the general practice is to apply standard deduction. In that view where deceased was married the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 where the number of the dependants family members is 2 to 3, 1/4 where the number of depandant family members is 4 to 6, and 1/5 where the depandant number of family exceed 6. In view of the above observation made in the cited case law, in our present case in hand the number of dependancy is 4 and as such deduction of income of personal and living expenses of the deceased will be 1/4 of his annual income. 17) Now going to the question of computation of compensation, it is necessary to determined the monthly income by taking note of future prospect and for that the principle laid down in Rajesh vs Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 cont. 6

6 -6- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 is relied on and that in case of computation of compensation which is made applicable to self employed as well as those on fixed wage need to be enhanced by 30% where he belong to age group of below 40 to 50 years and as such the income should be added by 30% enhancement of his usual income as the age of the deceased is 48 years. By accepting the principle laid down in the above cases and discussions made in the foregoing para the the amount of compensation in the present case will be as below. Sl. No. HEADS CALCULATION (i) Income Rs. 3,000/- per month. (ii) (iii) (iv) 30% of above to be added as future prospects 1/4 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 900/- = Rs. 3,900/- per month Rs. 3,900/- - Rs. 975/- = Rs. 2,925/- per month. Rs. 2,925/- X 12 X 13 = 4,56,000/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of estate Rs. 30,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATON AWARDED Rs. 6,11,000/- 18) It is already discussed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-15C The insurance company have not denied their policy issued in favour of the owner. The accident information report on the other hand shows the fact that driver had the licence bearing registration D/L No. 5880/Bng/prof/08 valid up to 18/11/2011 and the policy number is recordedas /31/11/ valid up to 28/4/2012. Above facts shows that the offending vehicle was driven by a driver having valid licence and owner have valid policy and have not violated the condition of the insurance policy. As per the claim petition and the accident information report the vehicle bearing No. AS-15-C-3095 is insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hence,the National Insurance Co. Ltd., is liable to pay compensation. AWARD AND ORDER 19) It is ordered that the National Insurance Co. Ltd., be directed to make payment of Rs. 6,11,000/- (Six lakhs and eleven thousands) only with 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. Cont. 7

7 -7- MAC CASE NO. 250/11 20) The said amount will be distributed amongs the four claimants in equal share as the claim has been made jointly by the dependants standing on equal footings. 21) Accordingly National Insurance company is directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. If any Interim compensation has already been paid then it will be deducted from the total awarded amount of compensation. Copy of judgment and order be communicated to the O.P. The judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open court under my hand and seal of this court on this the 26 th day of September Dictated and corrected by me. Sd/- Sd/- ( A. F. A. Bora) ( A. F. A. Bora) Member, MACT, Barpeta Member, MACT, Barpeta

8 MAC CASE NO. 250/11 AWARD AND ORDER 26/09/2014 Judgment is written on separate sheets and it is pronounced accordingly. It is ordered that the National Insurance Co. Ltd., be directed to make payment of Rs. 6,11,000/- (Six lakhs and eleven thousands) only with 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. The said amount will be distributed amongs the four claimants in equal share as the claim has been made jointly by the dependants standing on equal footings. Accordingly National Insurance company is directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. If any Interim compensation has already been paid then it will be deducted from the total awarded amount of compensation. Copy of judgment and order be communicated to the O.P. The judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open court under my hand and seal of this court on this the 26 th day of September Dictated and corrected by me. Sd/- Sd/- ( A. F. A. Bora) ( A. F. A. Bora) Member, MACT, Barpeta Member, MACT, Barpeta