Jharkhand High Court
Md. Yusuf & Anr vs Sonali Udaypuri & Others on 5 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 158 of 2018
........
Md. Yusuf & Anr. .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Sonali Udaypuri & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
........
06/05.04.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Prashant Kumar
Rahul, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Anil Kumar and
learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Manish Kumar.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that there is delay
of 380 days in preferring the appeal for enhancement and for condonation
of the delay, I.A. No.6207/2018 has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants
namely, Md. Yusuf and Naimun Khatun have preferred the instant appeal
for enhancement of the award dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned District
Judge 1st -cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Latehar, in M.V.
Claim Case No.01/2015, whereby claimants have been awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,48,000/- to be paid within 45 days,
failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of order of judgment /award.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that deceased,
Wajid Ansari was student in the Institute of Medical Technology, and died
at the age of 22 years, while he was travelling on motorcycle alongwith
one Md. Imran Ansari, which was dashed by TATA 407 bearing
registration No. JH-01K-8158, near Komo forest due to which Wajid
Ansari lost his life and Md. Imran Ansari sustained grievous injuries.
Deceased was bachelor and he was degree holder of bachelor of
Commerce and Pathology.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned
Tribunal has not considered the multiplier in correct perspective
considering the age of the deceased rather learned Tribunal has considered
the age of father of the deceased, for computation of compensation
contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt.) & Others Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (para-42).
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that instead of
multiplier of 18, the learned Tribunal has considered multiplier of 11.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under
the conventional head, the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid contrary
to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, (para-59.8), whereby it ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- i.e.
Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future
prospect of the deceased has not been considered, though the deceased
was unemployed at the time of his death, but in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. etc. Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. decided the issue in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of
2021 on 05.01.2021 and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (Supra) (para-59.4), the claimants are entitled
for future prospect @ 40%.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
interest has not been granted from the date of filing of the claim
application in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act nor any
specific reason has been assigned for not granting interest rather the
interest has been granted @ 9% per annum, if the awarded amount is not
indemnified by the Insurance Company within a period of 45 days, as
such, the interest ought to have been granted from the date of filing of the
claim application.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Anil Kumar has
submitted, that the vehicle was duly insured before Oriental Insurance
Company Limited valid for the period from 30.07.2014 to 29.07.2015 and
there is no violation of terms and condition of the policy, as such, the
awarded amount has rightly been fastened upon the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Manish Kumar has
submitted, that so far interest is concerned, it has been awarded @ 9% per
annum, if the awarded amount is not indemnified within 45 days, however,
this Court has taken note of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC), a consistent view of 7.5% simple
interest from the date of filing of the claim application.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Manish Kumar has
further submitted that interest shall not be applicable for the period when
there is delay on the part of the claimants, as notice has been issued to the
Insurance Company on 20.09.2019, as such, if delay is condoned the
interest may not be granted for that period.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, looking into the fact
and circumstances of the case and considering the delay, since it is a
benevolent legislation, the appeal has been preferred for enhancement of
the award accordingly, the delay is condoned, but the claimants shall not
be entitled for any interest during the intermediary period that is after the
90 days of the award till 20.09.2019, on the date when the notice has been
issued to the Insurance Company.
Accordingly, delay is condoned, I.A. No.6207/2018 is disposed of.
It appears that there is no dispute with regard to the consideration of
notional income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has considered the
income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month as deceased was
admittedly an unemployed person, having bachelor degree in commerce
and Pathology. There is also no dispute with regard to deduction of 50%
towards personal and individual expenses of the deceased.
So far consideration of future prospect of the deceased, the learned
Tribunal has not calculated the same to the tune of 40% in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. etc.(Supra)
and Pranay Sethi (Supra) (Para-95.4). The learned Tribunal has also
considered the multiplier on the basis of age slab of the claimants, which
ought to have been age slab of the deceased, who lost his life at the age of
22 years, as such, in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma (Supra) para-42, multiplier of 18 is applicable.
Further, under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has only
awarded Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- as consortium and Rs.10,000/- as
funeral expenses contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as such, the same is granted as Rs. 70,000/-
i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses
and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate.
Accordingly, this Court is computing the compensation afresh:-
Income Rs. 3,000/- per month
Annual Income Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/-
40% future prospect Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 14,400/-
Pranay Sethi (Supra) para-59.4 = Rs. 50,400/-
1/2 deduction towards personal and Rs. 50,400/- x 1/2 = Rs. 25,200/-
living expenses
(Sarla Verma Supra) para-30
Total Income Rs. 50,400- Rs. 25,200/-
= Rs. 25,200/-
Multiplier of 18 (as the deceased Rs. 25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-
was in the age group of 21-25
years) Sarla Verma (Supra)
Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/-
Pranay Sethi (Supra) para-59.8
Total Compensation Amount Rs. 4,53,600/- + Rs. 70,000/-
= Rs. 5,23,600/-
The entire calculated amount shall be paid along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the 90
days of the award i.e. up to 22.02.2017 and thereafter from 20.09.2019 till
the date of indemnifying the award. The interest of intermediary period
shall not be granted as there is delay of 380 days, which has been
condoned vide I.A. No.6207/2018 on such conditions.
Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.
Since the occurrence is of date 30.09.2014, it is expected that
Insurance Company shall indemnify the award within a reasonable period.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
