- (1.) The victim was crossing Manmatha Ganguly Street towards R.G. Kar Hospital when the offending vehicle dashed her and the victim was run over causing fatal injury over her person. She was removed to R.G. Kar Hospital where she succumbed to the injury. She was pregnant at the time of accident. She was a graduate. The appellant being the husband of the deceased claimed compensation to the extent of rupees five lakh sixty-three thousand and five hundred. The Tribunal considered the evidence. The Tribunal awarded rupees fifty thousand as compensation to the foetus apart from rupees nine thousand and five hundred on account of funeral expense, loss of consortium and loss of estate. The Tribunal awarded further compensation on account of loss of the victim s life considering her income at rupees three thousand per month after deducting fifty per cent of her income as her personal expense. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of sixteen considering her age as thirty-five years. The Tribunal awarded an aggregate sum of rupees three lakh forty-seven thousand and five hundred and directed the Calcutta Tramways Company Limited to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, however, did not award any interest. Hence, this appeal and cross-appeal by both parties. The claimant was aggrieved as the Tribunal deducted fifty per cent of the income ignoring the mandate of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Calcutta Tramways preferred the appeal on the ground, inter alia, that no compensation could be awarded in respect of foetus and the multiplier was not properly applied. It was also contended that the husband was not entitled to compensation as he was not dependent upon the wife s income.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellants and Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/tramways.
(3.) Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick appearing for the claimants contended that since the income of the victim was within rupees forty thousand the structured formula as per Section 163A would be squarely applicable. The said provision would permit the respondent to deduct 1/3rd of the income as personal expense. Hence, deduction of half of the income was erroneous. He contended that a statutory provision should be interpreted liberally to extend the accident benefit to the claimants as the purpose was not to restrict the benefit but to extend the same. He relied on the following decisions :- i) Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Bose, 1975 2 SCC 526) ii) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 AIR(SC) 96) iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 1832) iv) Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda,2004 SAR(Civ) 596) v) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Sarojamma & Anr., 2008 5 SCC 142) vi) Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., 2009 AIR(SCW) 6999) vii) Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121) viii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gurumallamma & Anr., 2009 ACJ 2660) ix) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chacko, 2012 1 TAC 464);