MALLIKA DATTA Vs. RAKHI PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 23.4.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No. 436 of 2003.

(3.) Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows :- On 26.7.03, a police constable, namely, Haradhan Datta, died as a result of motor accident at Beltali Police Out-Post. The appellants No. 1 and 2, who are the wife and the son of the deceased, and the respondents No. 3 and 4, who are the parents of the deceased, filed the above said case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. TRL-3840 and claiming compensation of Rs. 22,78,000. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No. 2 is the Insurer. On the basis of the materials before it the Tribunal held to the effect that the deceased died on the said day in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TRL-3840 and that a sum of Rs. 4,85,080/- with an interest of 6% per annum on the said amount of compensation from the date of presentation of the Claim Petition was just compensation payable in connection with the death of the deceased/victim. While calculating the monthly loss of income caused to the claimants due to the death of the victim, the Tribunal substracted the amount of monthly family pension which the claimant No. 1 was getting i.e. Rs. 1900/- from the amount of monthly salary of the deceased i.e. Rs. 5884/- and concluded that Rs. 3984/- was the monthly loss of income. After holding that the deceased/victim died at the age of 40 years, the Tribunal considered 15 as the appropriate multiplier in the case and arrived to Rs. 7,17,120/- as a result of multiplying the above said monthly loss of income i.e., Rs. 3984/- by 15. Thereafter, on consideration that the deceased could have incurred expenses towards maintaining himself 1/3rd of the said sum of Rs. 7,17,120/- was deducted from Rs. 7,17,120/- and the Tribunal calculated a sum Rs. 4,78,080/- as the amount of compensation. Further, the Tribunal held that the claimant No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 5000/- for the loss of consortium and that the claimants were also entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- as the costs of funeral expenses of the deceased/victim. The said amount of just compensation i.e. Rs. 4,85,080/- was arrived by adding Rs. 4,78,080/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/-. As per the impugned judgment, apart from Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the claimant No.1, for the loss of consortium, the remaining amount of the compensation was to be paid to the claimants in equal shares. Directions were also given for depositing the share of the minor claimant in a fixed deposit in Tripura Gramin Bank, Agartala during the period of his minority and also for depositing 50% of the share of the claimant No. 1 and No. 2 in a fixed deposit in the same bank for 5 years.