Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 539 of 2021 The National Insurance Company Limited Versus Namita Das & Ors. For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Paul, Ms. Jaita Ghosh. For the Respondents : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal, Ms. Rita Bhattacharyya. Heard & Judgment on : 25th March, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents/claimants are present. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, R.D. Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 634/2014. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed due to the death of the victim in an accident which took 2 place on 23.06.2011 at about 7:00 A.M. with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a ‘Truck’ bearing registration no.BR- 16G/6254 which at an exceeding speed, rashly and negligently, hit a motor cycle stationed on the left side of a concrete road and dashed the victim along with motor cycle. The victim subsequently expired on his way to Jhargram Hospital. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that with regard to the age of the victim the Learned Tribunal had erroneously considered multiplier to be ‘18’ in place of ‘17’. The victim died as a bachelor and accordingly 50% of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenditure instead of 1/3rd. The rate of interest to the extent of 9% on the compensation amount was excessive. Moreover, the income of the victim to have been considered Rs.7,000/- was excessive without any proper documentary evidence and the general damages was granted to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which should have been Rs.36,000/-. 5. The learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal did not grant any amount towards future prospect though he did not file any cross-objection against his claim. 3 6. The learned Tribunal after disposing all the issues framed upon assessment of the oral and documentary evidence pronounced the impugned Judgment and Order. 7. The driving licence, insurance policy, date and nature of accident has not been disputed the document marked as exhibit- 6 being the salary certificate issued on 27.05.2014 belatedly after the occurrence of the accident mentioned the victim to have earned Rs.7,000/- per month. P.W. 2 in his cross-objection being the employer of the victim stated “my said Manager who wrote the income certificate as per my version has died in the year 2013”. There has been an error apparent in the recording of examination-in-chief of P.W.2 by the learned Tribunal which is replicated as follows:-“I have filed the affidavit-in-chief and signed it after going through its content I have filed an income certificate of Swapan Das which is written by my Manager Swapan Das and this is my signature on it marked as exhibit – 6”. It can be presumably concluded that the learned Tribunal had recorded the name of the Manager to be Swapan Das inadvertently which otherwise could not have been the same person who had expired on 23rd June, 2011. 8. Since the employer had appeared before the Court with the salary certificate, the sum of Rs.7,000/- to be the income of the deceased cannot be disregarded. However, the multiplier with 4 regard to his age on the date of the accident should be ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. 50% should be deducted towards personal expenditure since the victim died as a bachelor and the rate of interest is to be reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 9. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2, the impugned award of Rs. 10,58,000/- is modified as follows: Monthly Income Annual Income Add: Future prospect 40% Less 1/2 Multiplier to be “7” Add: General damages (15000+15000)+20% Non pecuniary damages Rs. 7,000/- X 12 Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 33,600/- ------------------ Rs. 1,17,600/- Rs. 58,800/- Rs. 58,800/- X 17 Rs. 9,99,600/- Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 10,35,600/- 10. The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs.16,52,938/- as per challan filed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company. 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 2 (2009) 6 SC 121 5 11. The Respondent 1 to 2/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 10,35,600/- at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization. 12. The office of the learned Registrar General High Court at Calcutta, shall encash the cheques and thereafter disburse the entire awarded amount so deposited to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 2/claimants in equal proportion as mentioned in the impugned judgment of the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal R.D. Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 634 of 2014 on proof of proper identification of the respondent No.1 to 2/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court fees and refund the balance amount through a cheque to the Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company for the accounts of the insurance company. 13. The interest generated on the sum of money deposited by the appellant/insurance company at the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta which has already been deposited in the nationalized bank by the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta is to be apportioned and the sum of interest accrued on the aforesaid amount is to be disbursed in favour of the appellant/insurance company for the accounts of the insurance company. 6 14. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 15. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 16. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)