Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 368 of 2025 Baby Pal & Ors. Versus The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. For the Appellants : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal Mr. Sayantan Rakshit For the Respondent No.1/ : Mr. Rajesh Singh Insurance co. Heard on & Judgment on : 1st May, 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 7th November, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in M.A.C. Case No. 378 of 2003. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 26.03.2012 at about 23.00 2 hours over Howrah Amta Road near Salap School Battala with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a motor cycle bearing Registration No. WB-12Z-2570 which hit the victim being a pedestrian at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently resulting in his death on the spot. 4. Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted that the element of future prospect to the extent of 10% considering the age of the victim to be 50 years and 2 month was not granted. More-over, the multiplier of 11 was applied instead of 13 considering his age at the relevant point of time. The general damages was granted to the extent of Rs. 9,500/- contrary to the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr. The major grievance had been that the learned Tribunal had deducted a sum of Rs.1,13,243/- which had been towards the component of the TDS being deducted instead of Rs. 52,610/- which had been the net tax payable from his gross total income of Rs. 700371/- 5. The learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted future prospect and general damages etc. as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr. was 3 not invoked at the time of the occurrence of the accident and subsequent pronouncement of the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in computing the compensation awarded. More-over, the interest to be paid at the rate of 8% per annum was exorbitant which should be reduced. 6. Since, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, driving licence, route permit and insurance policy etc. have not been disputed by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of issues agitated by the respective parties. 7. Considered the rival contentions of the learned advocates as aforesaid. 8. The document marked as Ext.8 endorsed the fact that the victim functioning as licensed agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and his service rendered resulting in the amount of income as mentioned in the last income tax return marked as Ext. 9 is in disputable. The learned Tribunal had erroneously deducted the sum of Rs. 1,13,243/- which had already been deducted towards total TDS. However, the net tax payable was to the extent of Rs. 52,610/- which should have been deducted in place of the sum of Rs. 1,13,243/- which had been already deducted towards TDS 4 prior to the issuance of bills and payment thereof. Considering the age of the victim to be 50 years two months the interregnum period between 50 to 51 years the multiplier should have been applied as 13 in place of 11. 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. 40,19,759/- is modified as follows: Gross Annual Income Less Tax Future Prospect to be added( 10%) 1/3rd Personal Expenses Multiplier to be “13” General Damages Less Entitlement Rs. 7,00,371/- Rs. 52,610/- Rs. 6,47,761/- Rs. 64,776/- Rs. 7,12,537/- Rs. 2,37,512/- Rs. 4,75,025/- X 13 Rs. 61,75,325/- Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 62,59,325/- Rs. 40,19,759/- Rs. 22,39,566/- 10. The Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants submitted that the appellants/claimants have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 40,19,759/- The appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,39,566/- 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 realization. 5 11. The Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1/insurance company is to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 40,19,759/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act till its realization. The excess amount to the extent of 2% towards rate of interest to be paid of Rs. 40,19,759/- is to be adjusted along with subsequent award to be determined at the rate as aforesaid. 12. 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 impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in M.A.C. Case No. 378 of 2003 on proof of proper identification of the appellants/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court’s fees within four weeks. 13. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 14. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 15. The TCR be sent down to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 16. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 6 c.m. AR. Ct. 2 (2009) 6 SC 121