ABATI BEZBARUAH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 10th April, 1996 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in M.A. (F) No. 208 of 1994 modifying an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Shillong in M.A.C. Case No. 20 of 1991.

(2.) The basic, fact of the matter is not in dispute.The husband of the appellant herein late (Dr.) Ramani Kanta Bezbaruah met with a fatal accident on 13th November, 1990 while he was proceeding on a scooter whence a jeep bearing registration No. MLK-5548 dashed against it. The claimant claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 27,46,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, having regard to the deceased's salary which at the relevant point of time was Rs. 3500/- per month, calculated the monthly dependency at Rs. 1700/-. The Tribunal calculated the life expectancy of the deceased to be 65 years, and the age of the deceased at the time of accident being 40 years. applied 15 as multiplier. However, from the said amount, 20% was directed to be deducted towards uncertainty of life as well as 10% for getting the lump sum amount and thus on that basis the amount of compensation which would have otherwise come to Rs. 3,06,000/- was reduced to Rs. 2,14,200/-. A sum of Rs.3,000/ was, however, awarded as expenses incurred by the family for the treatment of the deceased, and travelling expenses etc. A further sum of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded by way of loss of consortium, Rs. 6000/- towards the expenses of cremation, Rs. 3,000/- for loss of love and affection. On the said basis a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,200/- was awarded. It was further directed that the awarded amount be paid to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The High Court in appeal, however, held that having regard to the income of the deceased, which was Rs. 3500/- per month, the loss of dependency should be enhanced to the tune of 2,000/- per month. So far as rate of interest is concerned, the same was also directed to be enhanced to 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the date of the receipt of the awarded amount.

(3.) Mr. A. P. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel would firstly submit that the rate of interest prevailing at the relevant time being 10% the High Court erred in granting interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The learned counsel in support of the said contentions relied upon R.L. Gupta and others v. Jupitor General Insurance Company and others ((1990) 1 SCC 356). Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, ((2001) 2 SCC 9) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, ((2002) 6 SCC 281).