National Insurance Company Limited v. Jaharan Bibi & Ors.

The case is, thus, disposed of, The case record be consigned to District Record Room forthwith. The judgement is delivered on this the 29 July 2022 in open Court in Paschim Medinipur.” The appellant/ National Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal. Learned advocate for the appellant/insurance 5 company submits that the Learned Trial Court erred in considering the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 15,000/- without any corroboration and without any documents. Learned advocate further draws attention to the cross-examination of PW-1, where PW- 1 stated that “I have no document showing that my father was a Bike mechanic”. Learned advocate submits that contrary statement of the witness creates doubt, as to whether the victim was engaged in the occupation of plumber. Learned advocate also submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in awarding consortium of Rs.2,40,000/- and general damages to the extent of Rs.30,000/- which is contrary to the rules and judicial decisions. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4/claimant submits that although the claimants/respondents did not furnish any document with the regard to the income and profession but the Learned Trial Judge has assigned reason for accepting the findings that the victim was earning of Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned advocate also submits that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Now with regard to the first issue about occupation of the victim as well as income, no document is furnished by the claimants with the regard to the occupation of the victim neither any documents is furnished with regard to the income. 6 However, from the pleadings in the petition, the examination in chief and the cross-examination nothing can be shaken as to the victim being a plumber. The examination in chief and the cross- examination gives the Court sufficient ground to believe the contention of the claimants that the victim was a plumber. Although in the cross-examination it is stated by the PW-1 that she has no document showing his father was a bike mechanic, but this has no relevance to the facts of the case because it is not clear as to what question was put. Now with regard to the income of the victim, it further appears that no documents were furnished with the regard to the income nor there is any corroboration. However, considering the fact that the victim had to maintain a family of four persons and considering the nature of his occupation, it cannot be said that it is impossible for a plumber to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. The Learned Trail Judge in the judgment and award was pleased to make the following observation: “In the body of the application u/s 166 of M.V.Act, there is specific averment that the victim since deceased used to earn Rs. 15000/- per month as plumber. During evidence, P.W.1 adduced that her father since deceased was engaged as a plumber and used to earn. Rs.15000/- P/M. There is no cogent materials to disprove such oral evidence of P.W.1. In 7 todays socio-economic structure it is not believable that a person without a good amount of monthly income would be able to maintain a family consisting of four heads. A plumber normally earns such amount and with the rise of price index they are also raising their charges for their work. The income of the victim is thus proved under law. He on the date of death, was earning Rs. 15,000/-P/M.” Thus, considering the facts of the case and the reason cited by the Learned Trial Judge, this Court is of the view that it would not be proper to interfere with the findings of the Learned Trial Court with regard to the monthly income of the victim. Thus, the compensation which comes with regard to the total dependency loss amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- is affirmed. However, with regard to the total consortium and general damages which is awarded, this Court is of the view that Rs.40,000/- consortium to the spouse, Rs.40,000/- consortium to the father as filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- compensation on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate should be awarded in this case. Thus, the compensation on account of consortium and general damages comes to Rs. 1,10,000/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.20,60,000/- by arithmetical calculation. However, this Court is of the view that the total compensation of 8 Rs.20,00,000/- is just and reasonable. Thus, the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the appellant/ National Insurance Company Limited along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till today. The National Insurance Company Limited/appellant herein shall deposit the awarded sum before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim case till today within eight weeks from the of communication of this order. In the event the amount awarded by the Learned Trial Court is already paid or deposited no further deposit be made. The respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be entitled to withdraw the awarded sum along with accrued interest, if any, as observed above. The residuary amount along with accrued interest shall be returned to the appellant/insurance company. The Trial Court Records be send down immediately. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal along with connected application, if any, stand disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual 9 undertakings. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)