At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. BANERJEE
For the Appearing Parties: Jayanta Kumar Mondal, Rajesh Singh, Advocates.
B. BHATTACHARYA AND R.N. BANERJEE, J.
(1) INSTEAD of disposal of the application, we have heard out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list as the appeal is otherwise ready.
(2) THERE is no dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died in accident involving a vehicle, which is covered by the insurance of respondent insurance company.
(3) THERE is also no dispute that the victim was an employee of United Bank of india and was aged 45 years at the time of death. His gross salary at that point of time was Rs. 8,418 a month and as such, by applying the multiplier of 15, the total amount of compensation will come to rs. 10,10,160 + Rs. 9,500 = Rs. 10,19,660.
(4) THE learned Tribunal below assessed the compensation amount to such a figure, but thereafter, was of the view that as the widow was getting family pension and the son of the victim was given appointment on compassionate grounds in the same bank, the amount should be assessed at rs. 6,24,160.
(5) BEING dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.
(6) AFTER hearing Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company and after going through the aforesaid finding, we are unable to accept the approach of the learned Tribunal below.
(7) IT is now settled by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in case of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), that the fact that the widow of the victim was getting family pension was inconsequential for determining the compensation and no amount should be deducted from the assessed one on that account.
(8) SIMILARLY, the fact that the son of the victim has been given employment on compassionate ground is also irrelevant as the son is getting his salary after giving labour and he could be also employed in some other offices, if he was not given employment by the said bank.
(9) WE, thus, find that there was no justification of reducing the said amount on account of family pension or appointment of the son of the victim on compassionate ground.
(10) WE, therefore, set aside the award impugned and direct the same by enhancing the same to Rs. 10,19,660 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31. 12. 1999 and at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 1. 1. 2000 till actual payment.
(11) WE are told that the insurance company has already deposited the amount of rs. 6,24,160.
(12) IT is needless to mention that the running of interest on the aforesaid sum of rs. 6,24,160 will stop from the date of deposit of such amount by the insurance company.
(13) THE insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a month from today before the learned Tribunal. The amount should be disbursed in the same proportion and same manner as indicated in the award impugned.
(14) THE appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above.
(15) IN view of disposa
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
l of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. (16) LET the lower court records be sent down immediately. (17) XEROX certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel appearing for the parties within a week from date. Appeal allowed.