GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 29:
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R. Goswami for the appellants and learned Counsel Mr. A.N. Das for the respondent no.2.
2. The appellants in this case are Sri Lakheswar Deka and Sri Apurba Deka who were the claimants in the original MAC Case No.84/2018 whereas, respondents in this case are Smt Geeta Das, owner-cum-driver of vehicle bearing registration no.AS-21-E-8644 and United India Insurance Company Limited respectively.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Member, MACT no. 2, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No.84/2018 awarding an amount of Rs.7,67,000/- along with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
4. It is contended that the learned Tribunal had committed manifest error in law as well in facts in not considering the case in its proper perspective as the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence on record as well as the documents submitted by the appellants/claimants. It is contended that the appellant/claimant no.2 in his evidence specifically submitted that his deceased mother, namely, Bhadra Deka apart being a competent house wife was also employed as a worker in the manufacturing and packaging drinking water unit of M/S Golden Beverages situated at Dongarbori Jagiroad, in the district of Morigaon and was earning around Rs 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only per month. As a house wife, her most essential selfless service towards the family was undervalued at a meager amount of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month by the learned Tribunal.
5. It is also contended that appellants/claimants had exhibited the employment certificate (exhibit no.4) to substantiate that the deceased late Bhadra Deka was working in the manufacturing and packaging drinking water unit, but, the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration, her income and passed the award wherein the quantum of compensation was assessed at a much lower rate. The appellants have also assailed the loss of consortium at a meager amount of Rs 44,000/-(Rupees forty four thousand). It is also contended that the Judgment and Award is highly speculative and lacks rational basis and is thus liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer laid stress in his argument that the quantum of compensation is at par with the accident which occurred in the year 2017 and thus the quantum was awarded accordingly. Moreover, learned Tribunal has not under valued the role of a mother and has correctly observed that "role of a lady towards her family cannot be measured in monetary terms. She has multifarious roles to play as a mother, as a wife and many more. She is not working for some financial benefit but it is her affection, sincerity and care towards her family that keeps her working round the clock." Thus, her role has been held at a high pedestal. It was further argued on behalf of the insurer that the financial background of the claimants, the type of household has not been brought on record by leading evidence.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpDd6I0ylanXtPfdhvlX86mbRezJ6OcjnHal92b0lJZ0j&caseno=MACApp./18/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010001092023&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
