Jharkhand High Court
Anjita Sinha vs Girraj Prasad Gupta on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 221 of 2014
1. Anjita Sinha
2. Ankita Sinha
3. Amit Kumar .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Girraj Prasad Gupta
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
------
10/03.08.2021
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation as awarded to them vide award dated 20.02.2014 passed by the
District Judge-V Cum MVACT, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 61 of 2007.
3. The case arises out of motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on
18.02.2007, while the deceased Anjana Sinha @ Anjana Jaipuriya along with her
husband were on return journey from Hazaribag to Koderma by their Maruti Car
bearing Registration No. JH 12A 3551. Their vehicle met with an accident
involving L.P Truck having Registration No. RJ 02G 7840. It is alleged that the
truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in this accident.
The deceased as per the claim application was aged about 40 years. The deceased
was running a coaching institute and giving private tuition and was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month.
4. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement,
stating therein that the vehicle was being driven by the husband of the deceased
in rash and negligent manner. It has also been stated that the deceased was a
house wife having no income.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear thus the tribunal
proceeded ex parte against him. The tribunal after taking into consideration all
the evidences on record, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000/-.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the income of
the deceased was wrongly assessed by the tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum,
whereas it should have been Rs.5000/- per month.
Further no compensation on account of "future prospect" has been granted by the
Tribunal. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation on account of future prospect. He submits that on the
conventional head also, only a sum of Rs. 2000/- has been awarded, which is
much on the lower side and not as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra).The
appellants also claimed interest at the rate of 9% per annum. On these ground
they pray for enhancement.
7. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken
place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased's husband. He submits that
deceased's age at the time of accident was over 45 years. He submits that just
compensation has been awarded in this case.
8. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for enhancement
of compensation. From the submission of the parties, I find that Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
9. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that the
deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration
No. RJ 02G 7840 which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle
was registered with National Insurance Company Limited. The dependency is
also not disputed. It is also not a case of violation of the terms of the policy. Since
all these facts are admitted, I am not dealing with these admitted facts in details
in this appeal, I am only dealing with the dispute which was raised by the counsel
for the appellants.
10. There is a dispute about the age of the deceased. The insurance company
claimed that the deceased was of 45 years at the time of accident but the claimants
claimed that the deceased was 40 years old. The tribunal has assessed the age as
40 years.When I go through the record I find that there are both oral and
documentary evidence in favour of the claimants, thus the tribunal has rightly
assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years.
11. So far as the conventional head is concerned, this Court feels that
Rs.70,000/- would be the correct compensation on the aforesaid head in view of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
12. So far as future prospects is concerned 25% should be awarded to the
appellants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra). So far as multiplier is concerned Tribunal has wrongly applied
the multiplier of 16, in view of the judgment of Supreme court, the correct multiplier
would be 15 as per the age of the deceased.
13. On the point of income of the deceased, I find that the claimants have
stated that income of the deceased is Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants have
not put forth any evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was earning
Rs. 5,000/- per month. Thus the tribunal had concluded that the deceased was a
house wife and assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 15000/- per annum,
notionally. In my view the income of the deceased as assessed by the tribunal is
much on the lower side. Thus notional income of the deceased should have been
taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month. Thus considering what has been held above, the
just and fair compensation would be calculated as under:-
Rs. 3000/- x 12 x 15(multiplier) = Rs. 5,40,000/-
Rs. 5,40,000/- - 1/3rd (Dependency) = Rs. 3,60,000/-
Rs. 3,60,000/- + 25% (future prospects) = Rs. 4,50,000/-
Rs. 4,50,000/- + 70,000/-( Conventional Head) = Rs. 5,20,000/-
14. As per this Court amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- is the just compensation which
the appellants are entitled to receive. In this case the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation. Thus, as per the calculation above, the appellants
are entitled to receive further sum of Rs.3,58,000/-. The balance amount should
be paid within a period of two months. This balance amount will carry interest @
7% p.a from the date of the award till the said payment is made.
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
