NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NUMALI SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act') against the award, dated 22.5.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, in MAC Case No. 118 of 2004, under Section 166 of the MV Act, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has determined a sum of Rs. 9,48,092, as compensation, payable to the wife and two daughters of deceased Atul Saikia, who had died in a motor vehicular accident, on 5.5.2004, as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12/8601, and the learned Tribunal has accordingly directed the insurer to pay the said sum of Rs. 9,48,092 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization of the entire amount. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer has impugned the same in the present appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the insurer-Appellant, and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimant-Respondents.

(3.) What may be pointed out, at the very outset, is that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant, as legal representative of deceased Atul Saikia, is entitled to receive compensation, for the death of Atul Saikia, is not in dispute in this appeal. It is also not in dispute that, as insurer of the offending truck, the present Appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant-Respondents. What is, however, in dispute is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. In this regard, it has been pointed out by Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the insurer-Appellant, that the said deceased was a Headmaster of a L.P. School and his age being 53 years 2 months, it is clear that had the said deceased remained alive, he would have served barely for a further period of 6 years 10 months. In such circumstances, points out Mr. Ahmed, the learned Tribunal could not have treated 2/3rd of the pay and allowances, which the said deceased was drawing at the time of his death, as the amount, which would have been receivable by the claimants, had the said deceased remained alive. Mr. Ahmed further points out that in a case of this nature, when the said deceased had about 6(six) years to retire, his last pay and allowances ought not to have been made the sole basis for determination of compensation. In support of his submission, Mr. Ahmed places reliance on the decisions, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors, 2007 AIR(SC) 1243, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors, 2007 AIR(SC) 2649 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gunamoni Bora and Ors, 2008 3 GauLT 733. The submission, so made on behalf of the insurer-Appellant, could not be substantially controverted on behalf of the claimant-Respondent. It is in this backdrop that the present appeal deserves to be decided.