HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA M.A.C. App. No.110 of 2024 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Signatory, 1st Floor, Above „W‟ Showroom Mantribari Road, Old RMS Chowmuhani, P.S.-West Agartala, District- West Tripura. {Insurer of Vehicle bearing Registration No. TR- 01-AA-1744 (Bolero Pick Up Van Flat Bed)} ......Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Chitta Ranjan Chowdhury, S/o. Lt. Sarada Ranjan Chowdhury, Resident of Krishnanagar, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura. …...Claimant-Respondent(s) 2. Sri Gobinda Chandra Deb, S/o. Gopal Chandra Deb, Resident of Dakshin Kashipur, Khayerpur, P.S.- East Agartala District: West Tripura. (The owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-AA-1744, Bolero Pick Up Van Flat Bed). …...Owner-Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Bhowmik, Adv. Date of Hearing & Judgment and Order : 12.03.2025 Whether fit for Reporting : NO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order(Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is filed by the appellant Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the Judgment and award dated 14.06.2024 delivered by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura District, Agartala, Tripura in connection with Case No.T.S. (MAC) 14 of 2017. By the said judgment and award Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.26,98,000/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claimant petition w.e.f. 18.01.2017 till the date of realization and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company Ltd., i.e, the appellant herein. 2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company Ltd. and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant and Mr. Pratik Bhowmik Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent owner. 3. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant only drawn the attention of this Court in respect of future prospects awarded by the Learned Tribunal below and submitted that in view of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, since the petitioner was more than 60 years at the time of accident, so the Tribunal at the time of determination of compensation wrongly calculated 10% of amount as future prospects which was not permissible in view of the said judgment. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further drawn the attention of the Court referring Exbt.2 i.e. the Disability Certificate wherein the age of the victim was shown as 69 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged accident took place on 20.02.2016 and the said Disability Certificate was issued on 27.07.2016. So according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the Learned Tribunal below ignoring the principle of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforenoted case wrongly awarded 10% of income as future prospects and urged for deducting the same amount from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. So, Learned Counsel for the appellant urged for allowing this appeal to the aforesaid extent as stated above. 5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant-petitioner also concurred the same submission made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant and fairly submitted that in view of the said citation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the same is not permissible in the eye of law and urged for passing appropriate order. Learned Counsel for the respondent-owner did not submit anything but fairly submitted that on the alleged of accident his vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 6. I have seen the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal below and it appears that at the time of determination of compensation Learned Tribunal below determined the age of the claimant-petitioner in between 56- 60 and decided to add 10% of the monthly income to be added as future prospects which in my considered view Learned Tribunal below committed error in delivering the judgment ignoring the principle of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforenoted case. Situated thus, the said amount of 10% added by Learned Tribunal below needs to be deducted from the amount of calculation determined by the learned Tribunal below. Accordingly, after deduction of said 10%, the calculation of compensation would be as follows: (i) Income per month = Rs.10,000/- (there is no dispute to that amount by either of the parties). (ii) After deletion of 10% of monthly income as determined, compensation would be by applying multiplier of 9 i.e. Rs.(10,000X12X9)/-=Rs.10,80,000/- With Rs.10,80,000/- for the amount of Rs.(12,50,000+90,000+1,00,000+10,000+60,000)/- would be added. So after totaling of the said figures the actual amount of compensation would comes to Rs.25,90,000/- which the present respondent-claimant-petitioner would be entitled to get. 7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of to the extent that the claimant-petitioner will be entitled to get the award of Rs.25,90,000/- with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of registration of the claim that is w.e.f. 18.01.2017 to till the date of realization. Since it is already ordered that the present appellant herein is to pay the compensation to the claimant-petitioner, so the appellant is asked to pay the said amount to the claimant-petitioner with interest within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today to the Registry of the High Court and the appellant Insurance Company Ltd. shall also be at liberty to recover the said amount from the O.P. No.1 Sri Gobinda Chandra Deb, i.e. the owner on the principle of “pay and recover” policy. 8. Supply a copy of this judgment/order to the Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant-petitioner free of cost. The appeal is thus disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Amrita MOUMITA DATTA Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA Date: 2025.03.18 17:53:10 +05'30'