Jharkhand High Court
Awarish Tigga And Anr vs Lakhbir Singh And Anr on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 66 of 2018
........
Awarish Tigga and Anr. .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Lakhbir Singh and Anr. .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
........
07/03.08.2021
Heard, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel for the appellants.
Appellants namely, Awarish Tigga and Dibya Gulab Lakra have
preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 20 th May, 2017
passed in M.V. Claim No.14 of 2015 by 1st District Judge-cum-The Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Latehar, whereby on account of death of
the son of appellants namely Mukesh Tigga, compensation has been
awarded to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- to be paid within forty five days from
date of the order failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% after 45
days till realization of the amount.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that though
liberty has been given to the Branch Manager, Future Generally India
Insurance Company Limited who was insurer of the Piaggio Tempo
bearing registration No. JH-03H-7176 to recover the awarded amount after
indemnifying the award to the claimants from the owner of the tempo as the
owner was not operating the tempo having driver who was holding effective
and valid driving licence. It appears that no analogous appeal has been
pending before this Court as per the office note dated 28.07.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the deceased
Mukesh Tigga aged about 18 years was a student of class-12. He lost his life
while driving his motorcycle, which was dashed by Piaggio Tempo bearing
registration No.JH-03H-7176 on 10.06.2013. The FIR was instituted as
Mahuadarn P.S. Case No.14 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.375
of 2013 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the
learned tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased
to be Rs. 3,000/-, though there was sufficient evidence on record that
income of the deceased for tuition was Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned
Tribunal has used wrong multiplier on the basis of age slab of claimant
No.1, who was more than 50 years rather it ought to be on the basis of age
of the deceased, as per judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009
(3) JCR 17 SC, if a person who died between the age of 15 to 20 years
multiplier would be 18.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that less
amount has been paid under future prospect of the deceased. Further,
amount under the conventional head has been given to the tune of Rs.
20,000/- which ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para-59.8).
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest
has also not been awarded, in view of the Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle
Act from the date of institution of claim application.
Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company Mr. Alok Lal,
has submitted that this is an appeal of enhancement, as such notice may be
issued upon owner of the offending vehicle.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, let notice be issued
upon owner of the offending vehicle namely, Mr. Lakhbir Singh, S/o Late
Baneshwar Singh @ Prabhudas Singh @ Bagesabi Singh, R/o Vill. -Lodh,
PS- Mahuadanr, P.O.-Chatakpur, District-Lathehar (the owner-cum-driver of
Piaggio Tempo bearing registration No.JH-03H-7176) under both process
i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process,
for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks. The notice under
ordinary process shall be served upon the respondent after verifying the
present and correct address from the concerned District Transport Officer.
Let the appeal be listed after service of notice.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
S.K/Tarun
