Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMAT 399 of 2017 Jayanti Rana & Ors Versus H.D.F.C. Eggo General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr. For the appellants/claimants. : Mr. Jayanta Mondal Mr. Sayantan Rakshit For the respondent nos. 1 : Mr. Rajesh Singh Heard & Judgment on : 30th January, 2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 10th February, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 2nd Court, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman in M.A.C. Case No. 143 of 2012. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had been filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 02.03.2012 at about 7 p.m. with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a trailer bearing registration No. NL-01-D-8939 which approaching from Nimpura side towards Chowringhee at an exceeding speed, rashly and negligently hit the victim who was waiting near Tata bearing gate in order to cross the footpath. The victim unfortunately died on the spot consequently. 2 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted the Learned Tribunal erroneously failed to grant the amount under the head of ‘future prospect’. The sum of Rs. 4500/- was granted towards general damages instead of Rs. 30,000/-. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants did not dispute the monthly income of the victim as computed by the Learned Tribunal. 5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company submitted that the age of the victim was 26 on the date of the accident and accordingly the multiplier ‘17’ should have been assessed instead of ‘18’ which had been incorrectly considered by the Learned Tribunal. 6. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the driving licence, route permit etc and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of rectifying the erroneous consideration of future prospect, general damages and multiplier as agitated by the learned advocate representing both the parties in order to modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Tribunal. 7. 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. 9,39,456- is modified as follows: Monthly Income Annual Income Future Prospect to be added( 40%) Rs. 8657/- Rs. 10,38,84/- Rs. 41,554/- Rs. 1,45,438/- 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 2 (2009) 6 SC 121 3 Deduction (50%) Personal Expenses Multiplier to be “17” General Damages Less Award Entitlement Rs. 1,45,438/- Rs. 72,719/ Rs. 72,719/- X 17 Rs. 12,36,223/- Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 12,66,223/- Rs. 9,39,456/- Rs. 2,96,767/- 8. The Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants submitted that the appellants/claimants have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 9,39,456/-. The appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,96,767/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of its actual realization. 9. The Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1/insurance company is to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 2,96,767/- along with interest as aforesaid before the office of the learned Registrar General, High Court Calcutta within six weeks from the date of passing of this order . 10. The office of the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall encash the said cheque and thereafter disburse the same to the present appellants/claimants in equal proportion as mentioned in the award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 2nd Court, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman in M.A.C. Case No. 143 of 2012 on proof of proper identification of the appellants/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court’s fees. 11. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 12. The pending applications if any stands disposed of. 13. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. c.m. A.R. Court (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)