Case Title – The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors.
Case Number – CMA (MD) No. 249/2021 and CMP (MD) No. 2123/2021
Dated on – 18th April, 2024
Quorum – Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman and Justice P.B. Balaji
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., originated from a motor accident involving a private bus and a two-wheeler driven by Akbar Ali, who died in the accident. His Children and wife, Ramzan Begum (Respondent) and other injured passengers instituted multiple MCOPs (387, 388, 389, 391, and 429 of 2016) for compensation. The Insurance company (Appellant) contested the award, especially focusing on the MCOP No. 387 of 2016. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent based on the testimonies of the Witness (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5). The Tribunal awarder compensation to Akbar Ali and his family based on his alleged income as an Operations Manager in Malaysia, converting his salary to Indian Currency and adding future prospects. The Appellant, thereby, contested the negligence finding the quantum of compensation, asserting that the calculation based on foreign earnings and future prospects was incorrect.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the driver of the private bus was negligent in causing the accident that led to the death of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal properly assessed the compensation amount awarded to the family of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Tribunal correctly accounted for future prospects in the income of the deceased and applied appropriate deductions for personal expenses and dependency?
Whether the interest rate applied to the awarded compensation was appropriate and aligned with the legal standards?
Whether the grounds presented by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in their appeal were sufficient to warrant a modification of the awarded compensation?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section
Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the Appeal
Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Evidence to be taken in presence of accused
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Akbar Ali was negligent and responsible for the accident and that moreover he was not exercising due caution while riding the motorcycle, which contributed to the accident.
The Appellant claimed that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was excessive and not in accordance with the actual financial loss suffered by the family of the deceased and that the Tribunal did not appropriate deductions for personal expenses, thus, a higher percentage should have been deducted from the income of the deceased person for the personal living expenses, reducing the amount available for dependency.
Further it was asserted that the Tribunal overestimated the monthly income of the deceased and that the calculation of the income of the deceased was without sufficient basis. The future prospects should not have been considered or should not have been applied at a lower rate.
Moreover, the interest rate applied to the awarder compensation was too high, thus it was asserted for a reduction in the interest rate to align with the current legal standards and financial conditions.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the bus driver was entirely at fault for the accident and that the bus driver was driving recklessly and negligently, which directly caused the death of Akbar Ali.
It was asserted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fair and just, given the circumstances and the financial loss suffered by the family of Akbar Ali and that the amount was in accordance with the legal precedents and the needs of the dependents.
The assessment done by the Tribunal of the monthly income of Akbar Ali was supported by the Respondents and provided evidence that Akbar Ali had a stable and significant income, which was appropriately considered by the Tribunal.
Furthermore, it was argued that the inclusion of the future prospects in the income calculation was justified and that Akbar Ali, being young and in stable employment, had a reasonable expectations of future income growth.
The Respondent maintained that the deductions applied for personal expenses were appropriate and aligned with the legal standards and argued that the Tribunal correctly calculated the amount available for dependency.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., discovered that the monthly salary of the deceased, Akbar Ali was RM 3000 which if converted to INR 45,000 with 25% as added future prospect, the income is INR 56,250 and after a 30% tax deduction and a 10% economic disparity adjustment, the final monthly income is INR 33,750. The court calculated the pecuniary loss of INR 40,50,000 using a multiplier of 15 and considering 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses due to three dependants. The court determined the Loss of Consortium as INR 1,20,000, Funeral Expenses as INR 15,000, Transportation Expenses as INR 15,000 and the Loss of Estate as INR 15,000. The court reduced the total compensation from INR 46,60,000 to INR 42,15,000, with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.
The appeal was partly allowed by the court with specified modifications and that the Appellant was directed to deposit the reduced award within eight weeks. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the allocation of the Tribunal, with the share of the minor claimant to be held in an interest-bearing account until they reach majority. The claimants are required to pay court fees on the enhanced compensation amount. No costs were awarded and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P) is closed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment
