Jharkhand High Court
Indu Devi vs Haradhan Mahato (Owner Of Tractor ... on 13 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.560 of 2016
----
1. Indu Devi
2. Gita Devi
3. Rina Kumari ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Haradhan Mahato (Owner of Tractor bearing registration No. JH 05AN
6157).
2. M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company, Kolkata, 9/1, Matro
Towers, 9th Floor, 1 H.O. -CHI-MINH Sarani, Kolkata 7000071 (W.B.)
(Insurer of Tractor bearing registration No. JH 05AN 6157)
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Karan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 08.04.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 13.04.2021
6/ 13.04.2021 This appeal has been preferred by the claimants of Title (M.V.)
Suit No. 154 of 2013, praying for enhancement of the compensation amount,
which has been granted by the judgment dated 26th August, 2016 passed by
the District Judge III-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.154 of
2013.
2. The deceased Bharat Rajwar is the husband of the claimant No.1
and father of the other two claimants. The deceased, on 17.06.2012 was
returning to Seraikella from Sijua in motorcycle. When he reached near
Kandra Bazar, a tractor bearing registration No. JH 05AN 6157, driven in rash
and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. Deceased
fell on the road and the tractor ran over him, resulting in his death on the spot.
3. The claimants filed a claim application, praying for compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that the deceased was a
supervisor under a civil contractor and was earning Rs.12000/- per month. He
was aged about 48 years. Thus, the claimants, being the dependents, are
entitled to get compensation. The Insurance Company appeared, but, did not
file any written statement. The owner did not appear, thus, the claim case
proceeded exparte against him. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of
the claimants. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 was the employer of
the deceased. Salary certificate and other documents were also marked for
identification. The Tribunal considered the evidence and assessed the income
of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and thus, awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.3,32,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
claimants have approached this Court, praying for enhancement.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, submits that the
quantification of amount is absolutely erroneous. He submits that on a non-
existent ground the income of deceased has been taken as Rs.3000/- per
month when there are sufficient cogent oral and documentary evidence to
show that the deceased was getting Rs.12000/- per month. It has been further
argued that no future prospect has been awarded in this case and the amount
of compensation on account of non-pecuniary loss has only been assessed at
Rs.20,000/-, which is absolutely on the lower side.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits
that the document of income, which the appellants relied upon is doubtful and
thus, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.3000/- per month. He further
submits that taking the age of the deceased, the correct multiplier of 13 has
been used. Counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumaresh versus Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Another reported in
(2011) 12 SCC 488 on the point of fixation of income of the deceased.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through
the impugned award/judgment.
7. Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased. Claimant No.2 is a
widow daughter of the deceased and claimant No.3 is the unmarried daughter
of the deceased. There is no denial of the fact that the offending vehicle was
duly insured with the Insurance Company. Further the Tribunal found that the
offending vehicle, i.e., the tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting in death of the deceased. Now, the question is what would be the just
and fair compensation. While I go through the impugned judgment/award, I
find that the employer of the deceased deposed before the Tribunal as P.W.2.
In his deposition, he has categorically stated that the deceased was being paid
Rs.12,000/- per month as salary. Salary certificate was also proved by him,
which is Exhibit 1. This salary certificate was not disputed by the Insurance
Company. The Tribunal rejected the salary certificate on the ground that no
reference number or date was given in the said certificate and since the salary
certificate of the firm, where the deceased was working, was not produced,
thus, the Court presumed that without paying tax, the owner was running the
business, so, it cannot be believed that Rs.12,000/- per month was being paid
to the deceased as salary. Both the grounds taken by the Tribunal to
disbelieve the salary certificate is absolutely nonest. On a mere whimsical
ground, the Tribunal has rejected the salary certificate. The salary certificate of
the deceased could not have been rejected on the aforesaid ground when the
employer himself deposed as P.W.2 and has proved the salary certificate.
Thus, both oral and documentary evidence are in support so far as salary
certificate is concerned. The judgment cited by the Insurance Company is not
applicable in this case, specially in view of the positive evidence led by the
claimant on the point of income of the deceased. In that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found discrepancy in cross-examination, but, in this case I do
not find any material for not accepting the income of the deceased as per the
salary certificate. Thus, I hold that the monthly income of the deceased is
Rs.12,000/- per month.
8. Further, I find that it is admitted fact that no future prospect has
been considered while awarding compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi &
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has already laid down the principle and
has set forth the criteria to grant future prospect. In this case, the deceased
was employed in a private firm and was aged about 48 years. He being a
married person, as per the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
claimants are entitled to get a rise of 30% on account of future prospect.
Further, in view of judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), combined
non-pecuniary damages would be Rs.70,000/-, which the claimants are
entitled to.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts, the following would be the
quantum of compensation, which the claimants are entitled to get: -
Sl.
Description Amount
No.
1 Salary for one year [12000 x 12] 1,44,000.00
rd
2 Less 1/3 Deduction on account of personal expenses 48,000.00
3. Salary for one year after deduction of personal expenses [(2) - (1)] 96,000.00
4. Amount of Compensation applying multiplier of 13 [96000 x 13] 12,48,000.00
5. Add 30% on account of Future Prospect [1248000 x 30%] 3,74,400.00
6. Amount of compensation after adding future prospect [(4) + (5)] 16,22,400.00
7. Add Consolidated amount on account of non-pecuniary damages 70,000.00
8. Amount of compensation after adding non-pecuniary damages [(6) + (7)] 16,92,400.00
10. Thus, as per this Court, Rs.16,92,400/- is the just and fair amount
of compensation, which the claimants are entitled to receive along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum.
11. Out of Rs.16,92,400/-, the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,32,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus, balance comes to
Rs.13,60,400/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive further
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,60,400/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment/award, i.e., 26.08.2016 till
the date of payment, if the amount is paid within three months from today. If
the amount is paid beyond three months, the entire amount will bear an
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claimants will furnish their Bank
Account details (Account Number, IFSC Code etc.) to the Tribunal within one
month. The Insurance Company will electronically transmit the amount to the
said account by RTGS/NEFT within the time mentioned above. After paying
the same, the Insurance Company will submit a proof of such disbursement to
the Tribunal immediately.
12. With the aforesaid modification in the award/judgment dated 26th
August, 2016 passed by the District Judge III-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Title
(M.V.) Suit No.154 of 2013, this miscellaneous appeal stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
