1

BEFORE THE ADDL. MEMBER-2, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL TINSUKIA ::::::::ASSAM

District : Tinsukia.

Present : Md. A. Hakim, M.A, L.L.B,

Addl. Member-2,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Tinsukia.

M.A.C.T Case No. 22 of 2014

1. Smt. Salmi Das

W/o. Late Sonaram Das,

2. Sri Kartik Das, S/o. Late Sonaram Das, Both are R/o. Khari Gaon, P.S Doom-dooma, District Tinsukia, Assam.

(Claimant no. 1 is presently residing at Hijuguri Railway Colony, Quarter No. 165/H, Tinsukia, P.O/P.S and District Tinsukia, Assam) .........…………Claimants. -Versus-

1. Sri Sobar Khan, S/o. Mujamil Khan, R/o. Thanai T.E, P.O. Dikam, P.S Dibrugarh, District Dibrugarh, Assam.

(Driver of the vehicle no. AS-06/J/7587)

2. Sri Amit Kumar Roy, S/o. Mr. Sunil Roy, R/o. Behind Gargo Motors Ltd. Thana Chariali, Dibrugarh, P.O, Dibrugarh, P.S Dibrugarh, District Dibrugarh, Assam. (Owner of the vehicle no. AS-06/J/7587).

3. The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dibrugarh Branch, Khemka Building, P.O/P.S Dibrugarh, Dist. Dibrugarh, Assam (Insurer of the vehicle no. AS-06/J/7587).

..................Opposite Parties.

2

Appearance:-

Sri H.K Bhagawati,

Advocate……………......……...For the Claimants.

Sri R. Keshari, Sri P. Duwarah & Sri S. Shah

Advocates........…...........…..For the Opposite Party no. 1 & 2.

Sri G. Chakraborty,

Advocate........…….............. ..For the Opposite Party no. 3.

Date of Argument : 22.11.17

Date of Judgment : 15.12.2017

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an application filed U/s. 166 Motor Vehicle Act,

1988 by which the claimant namely, Smt. Salmi Das seeking

compensation on account of the death of Late Sonaram Das

who was the husband of the claimant who died in a motor

vehicle accident.

2. The case of the claimant in brief is On 22.11.2013, at

about 8 P.M the deceased was proceeding from Hijuguri

Railway Colony towards New Tinsukia Railway Station to

attend his duties and when he reached near Hijuguri Gate

No. 1 one Bolero SLX bearing registration no. AS-06-J-7587

driven by respondent no. 1 coming from the opposite

direction i.e from Tinsukia Town towards Dibrugarh in a

very rash and negligent manner hit the deceased on the

extreme left side of the road as a result of which the

deceased received severe injuries on his head, scalp, ENT

bleeding. The deceased was immediately taken to the

casualty department of the L.G.B Civil Hospital, Tinsukia

where from he was referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh but

3

as his condition was too serious he was admitted to the

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh, Assam from 22.11.2013 to 11.12.2013 and after

that he was taken to AMCH, Dibrugarh where he

succumbed to his injuries on 13.12.2013. The Post mortem

of the deceased was conducted by the Associate

Professor of the Department of Forensic Science AMCH,

Dibrugarh. The accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the Bolero SLX No. AS-06-J-7587.

3. In connection with the said accident Tinsukia police

has registered a case Tinsukia P.S case 884/2013, U/s.

279/338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and

investigated the case accordingly.

4. The claimant further stated that at the time of death

the deceased was working as a Trackman under N.F

Railway, New Tinsukia and was drawing a monthly salary of

Rs. 17,721/- per month. That the claimants claims for loss

of income of Rs. 16,85,799/-

5. The Opposite parties have contested the case by filing

written statements. In their written statement the opposite

parties have taken all the routine pleas and denies the case

of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

6. Upon pleadings the following issues are framed by

my predecessor :

(i) Whether Sonaram Das sustained grievous

injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on 22.11.2013 as a result of rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.

4

AS-06-J-7587(Bolero SLX) and subsequently

succumbed to the said injuries on

13.12.2013?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get

compensation? If so, to what extent and from

whom?

7. During the course of hearing the claimant examined

herself alongwith another six witnesses in support of her

claim, whereas the OP’s have declined to adduce evidence

on their part.

8. The Tribunal has heard the argument advanced by the

parties at length and also, deciphered the materials on record

for an appropriate outcome of the instant case.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASON THEREOF

9. CW.1, Smt. Salmi Das has deposed in her evidence-in-

chief that she is the claimant cum wife of the deceased.

She states that on she filed the above noted case against

the respondents claiming for compensation for an amount

of Rs. 16,85,799.00. Her husband died in one motor

accident occurred on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M on 37

National Highway, near Gate No. 1, P.S and Dist. Tinsukia,

Assam. That on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M while her

husband Sonaram Das who was an employee under the

N.F Railway working as a trackman was proceeding from

Hijuguri Railway Colony Towards New Tinsukia Railway

Station to attend his night duties and when he reached

near Hijuguri Gate No. 1 one Bolero SLX bearing

registration No. AS-06-J/7587 driven by the respondent No.

1 Sri Sobor Khan, coming from the opposite direction in a

5

very rash and negligent manner hit the deceased who

was a pedestrian on the extreme left side of the road as

a result of which the deceased received severe injuries

on his head and scalp resulting loss of consciousness,

ENT bleedings, seizure and vomitting and later on he was

in coma. That at the time of the accident she was at her

home. One person came and informed her about the

accident. She together with her neighbours Mr. Baghlari and

his wife one Mrs. Chakraborty Sambhu's wife and Mr. Anil

Sonowal immediately went to the place of accident at

Hijuguri gate No. 1 in Mr. Baghlari's vehicle and came to

know from the gathering people that her deceased

husband was taken to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital for

treatment by the police but as his condition was too

serious he was referred to AMCH, Dibrugarh. She together

with one Sri Bhaity and another person brought her

deceased husband to Dibrugarh but as he was too serious

they admitted him in the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital

and Research Institute, Dibrugarh in the Intensive Care

Unit. Her son Kartik Das, i.e the claimant No. 2 reached

Dibrugarh in the late night as at the time of accident he

was at Doom-dooma. Her deceased husband as admitted

in the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research

Institute, Dibrugarh in the intensive Care Unit from

22.11.2013 to 11.12.2013 but as he did not regain his

senses he was shifted to the AMCH Dibrugarh and on

13/12/2013 at about 7 AM he succumbed to his injuries.

After the death of her husband Sonaram Das, her son

Kartik Das lodged one subsequent ejahar informing about

the death of her husband in the Tinsukia Police Station.

That the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the respondent No. 1 and in respect of the

said accident the Tinsukia police has registered one case

6

against the respondent no. 1 being Tinsukia P.S Case No.

884/2013 U/s. 279/338 IPC. That at the time of accident

her deceased husband was aged about 56 years and was

an employee in the N.F Railway working as a Trackman

and his gross salary was Rs. 17,721/-. That she and her

son claim a sum of Rs. 16,85,799/- as compensation for the

death of her husband from the respondents.

10. It is evident that CW.1 has submitted the following

documents in course of hearing of the case :

A) Ext. 1 is the Accident Information Report,

B) Ext. 2 is the Certified copies of FIR and Ejahar &

Seizure-list

C)Ext. 3 is the Prescription issued by LGB Civil

Hospital, Tinsukia of Casualty Department dated

22.11.2013, Death Certificate,

D) Ext. 4 is one slip of items issued by Srimanta

Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute for

Anaesthesia and Surgery items,

E) Ext. 5 is the discharge summary slip issued by

the department of Neurosciences of Srimanta

Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh,

F) Ext. 6 is the attested copy of Cadaver Report

form of Assam Medical College and Hospital,

Dibrugarh,

G) Ext. 7 is the certified copy of Post Mortem Report

of the deceased Sonaram Das issued by the

Associate Professor, Deptt. Of Forensic Medical,

Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh,

H) Ext. 8 to 30 are the money receipts issued by

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh,

7

I) Ext. 31 is the Bill No. 1771/13-14 dtd. 11/12/2013

issued by the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and

Research Institute, Dibrugarh,

J) Ext. 32 to 63 are the cash memos issued by

Durga Medical (Chemists and druggists), Dibrugarh,

K) Ext. 64 is the cash memo no. 9331 of Hanuman

Medico (Chemists and druggists), Dibrugarh,

L) Ext. 65 to 78 are the cash memos Basis Drugs,

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh,

M) Ext. 79 is the pay slip of the deceased Sonaram

Das of N.F Railway Tinsukia.

11. In cross examination the CW.1 has stated that the

deceased was her husband. She has three daughters and

one son. The daughters are married. The age of her son

was 21 years and he is bachelor. She has not seen the

accident. She does not know the name and identity of the

person, who intimated her about the accident. The

accident took place at about 7 AM near Gate No. 1,

Hijuguri under Tinsukia P.S Her husband was taken to Civil

Hospital after the accident by police nearby the P.O. She

met her husband at Civil Hospital. She saw him in

unconscious state at that time. After causing accident, the

vehicle ran away, however it was held near Panitola police

outpost. Later, she intimated the police about the accident

in writing. She does not know the contents of the written

statement filed by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as she has not

informed about the same by her lawyer. At the time of

accident, the age of her husband was 60 years. She

denies the suggestion that as stated by the OP Nos. 1 &

2, the accident took place due to carelessness of her

husband. She denies the suggestion that as stated in

8

Paragraph no. 12 of the written statement of the

defendant Nos. 1 & 2 that her deceased husband

suddenly tried to cross the road from the opposite side

in a careless manner and without watching the road on

his left as well as right side, he was trying to cross the

road. At that time, he was a dumper was coming from

Dibrugarh to Tinsukia very high speed and without

looking towards his left side of the road, from which

direction the OP No. 1 was coming, the deceased tried to

save himself from the said dumper, hit on the right side

of the looking glass of the said Bolero, which was driven

by the OP No. 1. She denies the suggestion that the

accident took place due to fault of the driver of the

Bolero.

12. The CW.1 further stated that the police did not

question her. She does not know the outcome of the

case, she lodged case at the P.S. She denies the

suggestion that the deceased was responsible for the

accident and so the police did not submit any charge-

sheet. She denies the suggestion that she had misquoted

the monthly income of her husband. She denies the

suggestion that she is not entitled to any compensation

as the accident occurred due to fault of her husband

and the concerned vehicle was not involved in accident.

She denies the suggestion that the compensation amount

was without any basis and also astronomical.

13. PW.2, Sri Munindra Saikia @ Bhaity has deposed in his

evidence-in-chief that he knows Smti Salmi Das and Sri

Kartik Das and the deceased Sonaram Das. That the

claimant nos. 1 and 2 of the present claim petition are the

wife and son of the deceased Sonaram Das who was an

9

employee under the N.F Railway working as a trackman.

The claimants have filed the above noted claim case

against the respondents claiming for compensation for the

death caused to the deceased Sonaram Das in one motor

accident occurred on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M. That on

22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M while he was proceeding from

Tinsukia towards his home at Hijuguri after performing his

duties and while he reached near Hijuguri Gate No. 1 on

the national highway he saw one Bolero SLX bearing

registration No. AS-06-J/7587 coming from the opposite

direction driven by the respondent no. 1 in a very rash and

negligent manner and knocked down one pedestrian on

the extreme left side of the road and fled away. When

he came near he could recognize the person as Sonaram

Das (his neighbour ) who was proceeding towards New

Tinsukia Railway Station to attend his night duties. As a

result of the said accident the deceased received severe

injuries on his head and scalp resulting loss of

consciousness. That he together with the gathering people

informed the matter to the police and as the condition of

the deceased was serious the police immediately took the

deceased to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital for treatment.

Meanwhile when he came to know that due to the

serious condition the deceased was referred to AMCH,

Dibrugarh, he together with the Claimant No. 1 Smt. Salmi

Das and one person namely Mr. Deka brought the

deceased to Dibrugarh but as he was too serious they

admitted him in the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and

Research Institute, Dibrugarh in the Intensive Care Unit.

The claimant No. 2 Kartik Das, reached Dibrugarh late

night. That later on he could learn that the said Bolero

was caught by the Panitola police the same night. The

deceased was admitted in the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital

10

and Research Institute, Dibrugarh in the Intensive Care

Unit from 22.11.2013 to 11.12.13 but as he did not

regain his senses he was shifted to the AMCH Dibrugarh

and on 13.12.2013 at about 7 AM he succumbed to his

injuries. That the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle i.e the

respondent no. 1.

14. The CW 2 did not turn up during the time of cross-

examination. So no cross-examination could be done by the

opposite parties.

15. CW.3, Sri Amarjeet Baglari has deposed in his

evidence-in-chief that he knows the claimant Smt. Salmi Das

and Sri Kartik Das and deceased Sonaram Das. That the

claimant nos. 1 and 2 of the present claim petition are the

wife and son of the deceased Sonaram Das who was an

employee under the N.F Railway working a a trackman.

The claimants have filed the above noted claim case

against the respondents claiming for compensation for the

death caused to the deceased Sonaram Das in one motor

accident occurred on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M. at National

Highway, Hijuguri near Gate no. 1, Tinsukia. That on

22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M while he came out from Rani

P.C.O near Hijuguri, Gate No. 1 after taking recharge card,

he saw one Bolero SLX being registration No. AS-06-J/7587

proceeding from Tinsukia towards Dibrugarh in a high

speed and knocked down one pedestrian on the extreme

left side of the road and fled away. Immediately he

together with other people present there went near the

said person and he could recognize the person as

Sonaram Das who is his neighbour. At the time of accident

he was proceeding towards New Tinsukia Railway Station to

11

attend his night duties. As a result of the said accident

Sonaram Das (since deceased) has received severe injuries

on his person especially on the head and scalp resulting

loss of consciousness. He immediately rushed towards his

home and informed the matter to the claimant no. 1, Smt.

Salmi Das and other neighbours. That afterwards he could

learn that as the condition of the deceased Sonaram Das

serious the police immediately took the deceased to the

Tinsukia Civil Hospital and later on shifted to Dibrugarh

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital for further treatment and

the same night the said offending Bolero care was caught

by the Panitola Police. That unfortunately on 13.12.2013 the

deceased Sonaram Das succumbed to his injuries at

AMCH Dibrugarh. That the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle i.e

the respondent no. 1.

16. In Cross examination the CW.3 has stated that he is

doing private service in Pareek Enterprise. He is under metric.

He cannot remember where he was on 24.06.16. He came to

this Court 2nd time in connection with this case. Prior today

around one month back he came to court in connection with

this case. Police did not taken his statement in connection

with this case. He had seen the accident around 20 ft. from

him. He did not notice the dumper. Around 5-6 persons were

there at the time of accident who rushed to the place of

occurrence. He denies the suggestion that he did not see

the accident and he was not present at the site at the time of

accident. He denies the suggestion that he is deposing

falsely that the accidental vehicle which was proceeding from

Tinsukia towards Dibrugarh was in high speed and knocked

down one pedestrian on the extreme side of the road. He did

not notice the dumper and therefore, he cannot say that the

12

victim when tried to cross the road, from opposite side in a

careless manner and without watching road on his left as well

as right side, and sawing a dumper coming from Dibrugarh to

Tinsukia, in a very high speed and without looking towards his

left of the road, when tried to save himself from the dumper hit

on the right side of the looking glass of the Bolero and

sustained injuries.

17. CW.4, Sri Pradip Deka has deposed in his evidence-in-

chief that he knows the claimant Smt. Salmi Das and Sri

Kartik Das and deceased Sonaram Das. That the claimant

nos. 1 and 2 of the present claim petition are the wife and

son of the deceased Sonaram Das who was an employee

under the N.F Railway working as a trackman. The

claimants have filed the above noted claim case against

the respondents claiming for compensation for the death

caused to the deceased Sonaram Das in one motor

accident occurred on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M. at National

Highway, Hijuguri near Gate no. 1, Tinsukia. That on

22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M while he came out from Rani

P.C.O near Hijuguri, Gate No. 1 after taking recharge card,

he saw one Bolero SLX bearing registration No. AS-06-

J/7587 coming from Tinsukia towards Dibrugarh in a high

speed and knocked down one pedestrian on the extreme

left side of the road and fled away. Immediately he

together with other people present there went near the

said person and he could recognize the person as

Sonaram Das who was previously his neighbour. At the

time of accident he was proceeding towards New Tinsukia

Railway Station to attend his night duties. As a result of

the said accident Sonaram Das (since deceased) has

received severe injuries on his person especially on the

head and scalp resulting loss of consciousness. That the

13

gathering people informed the matter to the police and as

the condition of the deceased Sonaram Das was serious

the police immediately took him to the Tinsukia Civil

Hospital and later on shifted to Dibrugarh for further

treatment and the same night the said offending Bolero

care was caught by the Panitola Police. That unfortunately

on 13.12.2013 the deceased Sonaram Das succumbed to

his injuries at AMCH Dibrugarh. That the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the said vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 1.

18. The Tribunal has examined witness Sri Puranjoy Borah.

He has stated that on 22.11.2013 he was at Traffic branch

of Tinsukia P.S. On that day an accident occurred on NH-37

near Hijuguri Gate No. 1 under Tinsukia P.S. In the said

accident one Sonaram Das sustained grievous injuries on

his person. Accordingly, a case U/s. 279/338 of the IPC was

registered against Sri Sobar Khan vide Tinsukia PS case

No. 884/2013. In the said accident case, he submitted

Accident Information Report i.e Form No. 54 of the Motor

Vehicle Act before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Tinsukia. The Ext. 1 is the Accident Information Report and

Ext. 1(1) is his signature thereon. But due to oversight the

official seal of Tinsukia Police Station, Traffic Branch was

not sealed in the said Accident Information Report and

today, he seek permission from the Hon'ble Tribunal to

put the official seal on the aforesaid report, which is

original. At the time of accident, he was the In-charge of

Traffic branch of Tinsukia P.S Now he is entrusted as

Traffic In-Charge of Tinsukia P.S.

19. Another Tribunal witness, Sri Arindom Barua has

deposed that he is at present working as Registrar in the

14

Surgical Unit No. 3 of Assam Medical College Hospital,

Dibrugarh, Prior to his appointment in that post, one

Swarup Das was the Registrar of Surgical Unit No. 3 of

Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh. Ext. 6 is the

Cadever Report issued from the Assam Medical College. In

Ext. 6 one Sonaram Das found to be admitted in the

surgical Unit No. 3 on 11.12.2013 and he expired on

13.12.2013 at 7:15 P.M. Ext. 6 (1) is the signature of Dr. S.

Das, which he knows. In the said Cadaver Report, the

patient died due to Aspiration pneumonia and head injury

caused due to road traffic accident. Accordingly the post

mortem examination was conducted. He has seen the

postmortem report of deceased Sonaram Das, which was

issued from the Asstt. Professor of Department of Forensic

Associate Professor of Department of Forensic Medicine,

Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh and from Ext. 7

it seems to be conducted on 14.12.2013 at about 1:45

P.M. The name, father's name and address of the

deceased is mentioned in the reverse side of Ext. 6.

20. Another Tribunal witness, Dr. Haren Konwer has

deposed that he is at present working as Supdt. Of

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh and he has received notice from this Court to

adduce evidence. Ext. 80 is the said notice issued by the

Hon'ble Tribunal and accordingly he has appeared before

the Tribunal to adduce evidence. From Ext. 4 it seems that

one Sonaram Das was admitted in their hospital on

25.11.2013 due to road traffic accident and he was

admitted in cabin No. NICH – 201 and registration number

was 11856/21305 and he was referred by Tinsukia Doctor

Momin of LGB Hospital, Tinsukia and accordingly he was

advised to do the test specifically given in Ext. 5.

15

Accordingly treatment was provided in their hospital and

ultimately during treatment he was in comma and

accordingly on 11.12.2013; he was discharged from the

hospital due to financial difficulties. Exts. 8 to 30 are the

money receipts issued by their hospital. Ext. 31 is the bill

issued from their hospital dated 11.12.2012 and the total

amount of bill was Rs. 1,04,550/-. Ext. 65 to 78 are the

bills of Basil Drugs issued from their hospital. Later on,

the patient got admitted in the Surgical Unit No. 3 of

Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh on the very

day of discharge and after two days, i.e. on 13.12.2013

he expired.

21. In cross examination, he states that he is the Supdt.

of Srimanta Sankardev Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh. He did not bring any record relating to the

treatment of deceased Sonaram Das. By this notice he is

not called by the Court to adduce evidence in the case.

He was only summoned to bring the relevant records of

treatment of deceased Sonaram Das. He deposed in the

case without instruction. By Ext. 4 the only item required for

anesthesia and surgery are mentioned. He did not treat the

patient and so , he cannot give the medical condition of

the patient at the time of discharge. It is not mentioned

but in Ext. 5 the patient as in comma, the symptoms found

in the discharge certificate is about to comma. In Ext. 5,

the following advices were given to the patient at the

time of his treatment.

To take care of the oral hygiene.

To do regular physiotherapy of the extrieviously

and chest.

To turn the patient every and an mattress to be

given.

16

Dressing of the bed twice daily.

High protein and high diet to be given.

To attend surging Neurosurgery if

1) repeating vomitting

2) seizure

3) Loss of Cer.

22. He being a doctor, say that a person who is in

the state of comma, cannot take food. He lost

consciousness. Ext. 29 is in the name of Promila Das, not

in the name of Sonaram Das. From Ext. 31 it cannot be

said that the amount has been paid. In case of receipt

of payment, they issue cash memo. He does not file any

document showing that Basil Drugs is the Pharmacy of

Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute,

Dibrugarh. He did not bring on record any document to

show that he is the Supdt. of Srimanta Sankardeva

Hospital and Research Institute, Dibrugarh. The said

hospital is private limited company. He cannot recollect at

this stage the name of the Director of the said Institute.

He has not submitted any authority letter issued to him

by the Managing Director of Board of the Director of the

company. He denies the suggestion that he deposes in

the case without any authority and has deposed falsely.

23. Now, for the sake of convenience and comprehension, I

am discussing the issues as follows for the proper adjudication

and decision.

ISSUE NO.1:

24. With regard to the issue no. 1 i.e. Whether Sonaram Das

sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 22.11.2013 as a result of rash and negligent

17

driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.

AS-06-J-7587(Bolero SLX) and subsequently succumbed to

the said injuries on 13.12.2013? I have gone through the

material evidence on record and found that the CW.1 Smt.

Salmi Das has deposed in her evidence-in-chief that she is

the claimant cum wife of the deceased Sonaram Das. She

states that her husband died in a motor accident occurred

on 22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M on 37 National Highway, near

Gate No. 1, P.S and Dist. Tinsukia, Assam. That on

22.11.2013 at about 8 P.M. Her husband Sonaram Das was

an employee under the N.F Railway working as a

trackman. While he was proceeding from Hijuguri Railway

Colony Towards New Tinsukia Railway Station to attend his

night duties on the fateful night and when he reached near

Hijuguri Gate No. 1 one Bolero SLX bearing registration No.

AS-06-J/7587 driven by the respondent No. 1 Sri Sobor

Khan, coming from the opposite direction in a very rash

and negligent manner hit the deceased who was a

pedestrian on the extreme left side of the road as a

result of which the deceased received severe injuries on

his head and scalp resulting loss of consciousness, ENT

bleedings, seizure and vomiting and later on he was in

coma. That at the time of the accident she was at her

home. One person came and informed her about the

accident. She together with her neighbours Mr. Baghlari and

his wife, along with one Mrs. Chakraborty Sambhu's wife and

Mr. Anil Sonowal immediately went to the place of

accident at Hijuguri gate No. 1 in Mr. Baghlari's vehicle and

came to know from the gathering people that her

deceased husband was taken to the Tinsukia Civil

Hospital for treatment by the police but as his condition

was too serious he was referred to AMCH, Dibrugarh. She

together with one Sri Bhaity and another person brought

18

her deceased husband to Dibrugarh but as he was too

serious they admitted him in the Srimanta Sankardeva

Hospital and Research Institute, Dibrugarh in the Intensive

Care Unit. Her son Kartik Das, i.e the claimant No. 2

reached Dibrugarh in the late night as at the time of

accident he was at Doom-dooma. Her deceased husband

as admitted in the Srimanta Sankardeva Hospital and

Research Institute, Dibrugarh in the intensive Care Unit

from 22.11.2013 to 11.12.2013 but as he did not regain

his senses he was shifted to the AMCH Dibrugarh and on

13/12/2013 at about 7 AM he succumbed to his injuries.

After the death of her husband Sonaram Das, her son

Kartik Das lodged one subsequent ejahar informing about

the death of her husband in the Tinsukia Police Station.

That the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the respondent No. 1 and in respect of the

said accident the Tinsukia police has registered one case

against the respondent no. 1 being Tinsukia P.S Case No.

884/2013 U/s. 279/338 IPC.

25. The statement of the CW.1 is corroborated by CW.3

Amargeet Baghlari and CW. 4 Sri Pradip Deka so far the

accident is concerned. The CWs have deposed in a straight

forward manner. The witnesses have deposed that the driver

of the alleged vehicle Bolero SLX bearing registration No.

AS-06-J/7587 driven by the respondent No. 1 Sri Sobor

Khan, in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the

deceased who was a pedestrian who died on 13/12/2013 at

about 7 AM he succumbed to his injuries. Although the

O.P’s. have cross examined the witnesses, but they could not

falsify the evidence of the witnesses. Apart from this the driver

of the alleged vehicle has also failed to adduce any evidence

on his defence nor the Insurance Company. It is apparent from

19

the evidence on record that the CW 3 and CW 4 are the eye

witnesses to the accident and the opposite parties could not

disprove the authenticity of the accident. From these facts and

circumstances, and taking note of the FIR, Form no. 54 and

medical report it is proved that the driver of the alleged

vehicle had driven the alleged vehicle rashly and negligently

and the death of the deceased was caused due to the

accident. Hence, the issue no.1 is decided accordingly in

favour of the claimants.

ISSUE NO.2

26. With regard to the issue no. 2 i.e. Whether the claimants

are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what extent and

from whom? I have found that it has already been decided that

the deceased Sonaram Das has died due to the alleged

accident caused by the alleged vehicle Bolero SLX bearing

registration No. AS-06-J/7587. Hence, the claimants being the

dependants, are entitled for compensation for the death of

their husband and the father respectively. Now, let us decide

what should be the just and proper compensation in the light

of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and from

whom the claimants will get the compensation.

27. Upon hearing both sides I have gone through the

evidence on record.

28. In the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that, “Basically only three facts need

to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation

in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of

the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The

issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of

20

dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for

arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards

the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the

multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the

deceased.”

29. In the instant case the claimants have stated in the

claim petition that the age of the deceased Sonaram Das

was about 56 years. The claimant has proved the age of the

deceased by exhibiting the Ext. 79 the pay slip of the

deceased Sonaram Das which is issued by the N.F Railway

Tinsukia. From the bare perusal of the Ext. 7o9 it can easily be

presumed that at the time of the death of the deceased

his age was about 56 years. As there is no contrary

evidence to the claim of the claimant about the age of the

deceased I would like to bestow weigh upon the age which is

drawn after the calculation of age of the deceased mentioned

in the said pay slip Ext. 79. And as such in my considered

opinion that the age of the deceased was 56 years

at the time of his death.

30. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned,

the claimant has stated in her evidence in affidavit that the

deceased was receiving gross salary of Rs. 17,721/- P.M.

being railway employee. The opposite party has also could

not deny the salary amount as shown by the claimant. The

Opp. Party no. 3 tendered their objection to the calculation of

the compensation basing upon the gross salary of Rs. 17,721/-

as mentioned in the Ext. 79.

31. Upon claim and counter claim of the parties about the

salary to be taken into account to decide the quantum of the

compensation I have gone through the Ext. 79. Upon perusal I

have found that the Ext. 79 is the Pay slip of July'10 of the

21

deceased, it is mentioned that the salary of the deceased

was Rs. 17,721.00. But from the pay slip it appears that

after deduction of P Pay, PF Sub sc, VPF, C GIS-C.

LIC/DBRT, Hosp Ki, Rent-Nom, Water Ch, Prof. tax,

S/Deposi, E1-Manua, CCS Loan the net salary of the

deceased was of Rs. 8388/-.

32. In view of the documentary evidence i.e. Ext. 79 I am of

the considered view that the claimant was receiving an

amount of gross salary of Rs. 17,721/- P.M. But from the pay

slip i.e. Ext. 79 it appears that the deceased had received an

amount of Rs. 8388/- as net salary P.M after deduction of OP

Pay, PF Sub sc, VPF, C GIS-C. LIC/DBRT, Hosp Ki,Rent-Nom,

Water Ch, Prof. tax, S/Deposit, E1-Manua CCS loan. Hence I

hold that the net income of the deceased was Rs.

8388/-P.M.

33. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi

and Ors. SPL (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 I am of the

considered view that as the deceased had permanent income

per month and the age was more than 56 years, an

addition of 15% ( i.e. Rs 1258.20) should be made into

the monthly income of the deceased towards his future

prospects. Hence Rs. 8388.00+1258.20 (15%) = Rs.

9646.20 would be the total income of the deceased per

month. As such the annual income of the deceased would be

Rs. 9646.20 X 12 months = Rs. 1,15,754.40 per annum.

34. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that- “Though in some cases the

deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is

calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the

general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having

22

considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are

of the view that where the deceased was married, the

deduction towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of

dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)

where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and

one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family

members exceed six.”

35. In the instant case, as the dependent family members

of the deceased is 2, the deduction towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd). One-

third (1/3rd) of Rs. 1,15,754.40 is Rs. 38,584.80.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive the remaining

two-third (2/3rd) of Rs. 1,15,754.40 i.e. Rs. 77,169.60 as

total savings.

36. As per the decision of the of SarlaVerma (supra), the

multiplier that has to be applied to find out the loss of total

dependency is 09 as the age of the deceased at the

time of his death was held to be 56 years. The relevant

portion of the decision of SarlaVerma (supra) judgment reads

as follows: “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be

used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above

(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and

Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the

age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one

unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16

for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45

years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units

for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for

56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70

years.”

23

37. As such, the loss of dependency is Rs. 77,169.60 X 9

= Rs. 6,94,526.40.

38. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi

and Ors. SPL (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 the claimants are

entitled to get the funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-

on account of death of Sonaram Das and Rs. 15,000/- for

loss of estate. The claimant Smt. Salmi Das is also entitled to

get Rs. 40,000/- due to the death of her husband as

consortium amount. Thus, accordingly, the award is computed

in the following scale:-

Rs. 8388.00 Net salary

15% of Rs. 8388/- =Rs.1258.20 is for future prospect.

Hence total net Income would be Rs. 8388/- +Rs. 1258.20=

Rs. 9,646.20.

Rs. 9646.20 X 12 months = Rs. 1,15,754.40 annual

Income.

1/3rd of Income of Rs. 1,15,754.40 is = Rs. 38584.80.

Rs. 1,15,754.40 – Rs. 38,584.80 = Rs. 77,169.60 (2/3rd of

Total Income)

Rs. 77,169.60 x 9 = Rs. 694526.40 (Multiplier applied)

Hence total compensation would be Rs. 6,94,526.40

+ 15,000.00 (Loss of estate) + 15,000.00 (Funeral Ex-

pense) + 40,000.00 (Consortium) = Rs. 7,64,526.40 (Sev-

en Lakhs Sixty four Thousand five hundred twenty six and

forty) in total only.

39. The above amount is awarded to the claimants on the

death of Sonaram Das due to the aforesaid vehicular accident.

24

From the reasons as analyzed above, the OP No. 3 i.e. The

New India Assurance Co. Ltd is liable to pay the

compensation amount i.e. Rs. 7,64,526.40 (Seven Lakhs

Sixty four Thousand five hundred twenty six and forty)

to the claimants.

40. In view of the above discussion and considering all facts

and circumstances, it is decided that the claimants are entitled

to get the award of compensation as calculated and computed

above, under the law and equity. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is

decided accordingly in favour of the claimants.

O R D E R

41. In the result, the claim petition of the claimants is

allowed and the total amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs. 7,64,526.40 (Seven Lakhs Sixty four Thousand five

hundred twenty six and forty) so computed on different

heads is awarded to the claimants. The OP No. 3 i.e. The

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay an

amount i.e. Rs. 7,64,526.40 (Seven Lakhs Sixty four

Thousand five hundred twenty six and forty) to the

claimants with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing

of the claim petition till the realization of the total amount of

compensation on the basis of aforesaid terms and conditions.

42. Accordingly, this instant MAC case is disposed of on

contest.

43. Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this

the 15th day of December, 2017.

25

Dictated and corrected by me.

(A. Hakim) (A. Hakim), Addl. Member-2 Addl.Member-2, M.A.C. Tribunal, Tinsukia M.A.C. Tribunal,Tinsukia

Transcribed by :

(P.D. Phukan)