Gauhati HC Enhances Compensation Awarded To Wife Of Deceased Driver, Says Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Didn't Consider His Future Prospects, Monthly Income

The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday enhanced an award by Rs. 1,50,000/-, granted by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the wife of a deceased driver on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider the future prospect and the monthly income of the deceased mentioned by the employer in the written statement.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:

“In the unorganized sector wherein the employment of persons are not documented, the aspect of monthly income may not be able to be proved by any documentary evidence. The outlook of the Tribunal is to take a reasonable stand by ascertaining as to whether the aspect of employment was otherwise substantially proved.”

The claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang (Tribunal) was made in respect of an accident which occurred on September 18, 2011, in which the husband of the appellant had died.

The deceased was a driver of Excavator and in the claim petition as well as in the deposition, it was contended that the deceased used to receive a monthly remuneration of Rs.8,000/-.

The claimant-appellant (PW-1) and a co-worker (PW-2) of the deceased consistently stated before the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/-. However, there was no document on the monthly income of the deceased.

The Tribunal by the judgment and order dated February 10, 2014, had awarded an amount of Rs.4,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent.

The appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, praying for an enhancement.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though there was no documentary evidence on the aspect of income, there was an adequate statement in the claim petition supported by the deposition made by the claimant as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 regarding the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-.

It was further submitted that the owner in his written statement had stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- and the owner further admitted regarding the employment of the deceased with him as a driver of the Excavator.

It was argued by the appellant's counsel that the Tribunal had taken Rs.3,000/- as income per month being the notional income. It was prayed that at least the amount mentioned by the owner in the written statement should have been taken to be the monthly income.

It was further contended that the aspect of future prospects had not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012).

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that the approach of the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the income which was deemed at Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income cannot be found fault with.

The Court noted that in the present case, there was no dispute or denial by the owner who was the opposite party in the claim regarding the employment of the deceased.

“The monthly income of the deceased was deposed by the witness for the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month. The owner in his written statement had however stated the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/-. The learned Tribunal had however taken the monthly income on a notional basis of Rs.3,000/-,” the Court observed.

On the issue of future prospects, the Court remarked that such an aspect was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

“The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down the future prospects to be 40%. Unlike a legislation, a judgment would be effective retrospectively unless a specific observation is made for its prospective effect. In any case, even if this aspect is considered from the date of the judgment by the Tribunal, the case of Santosh Devi (supra) was already available as per which the future prospect was quantified at 30%,” it noted.

Thus, the Court held that the impugned Award is inadequate and therefore a case for enhancement is made out.

Accordingly, the Court granted an additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant.

“The aforesaid amount is required to be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of 45 days from today in the Registry of this Court, failing which, the amount would carry interest @ 9% from the expiry of the prescribed period of 45 days. The amount be released to the claimant on being properly identified by the learned counsel,” the Court said.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 41

Case Title: Smti Devi Basumatary @ Devi Gogoi v. Ajit Chetia & 2 Ors.

Case No.: MAC App./191/2014

Click Here To Read/Download Order