Jamendra Kumar Singh @ Khaderan ... vs Rang Lal Barik
2021 Latest Caselaw 2689 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                            M.A. No. 278 of 2019
                                       .....

1.Jamendra Kumar Singh @ Khaderan Singh

2.Pramila Devi ...... Appellants Versus

1.Rang Lal Barik

2.M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...... Respondents

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO Through:- Video Conferencing

-----

For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate

-----

05/Dated: 03/08/2021:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan has submitted that the claimants namely, (1) Jamendra Kumar Singh @ Khaderan Singh and (2) Pramila Devi have preferred this enhancement appeal against the impugned award dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Court No. XVI, Dhanbad in M.A.C. No. 18 of 2017, whereby claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,34,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing till its realization within two months from the date of passing of award.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was running a Grocery Shop and was also holding agency of Sudha Milk Parlour and earning Rs. 500/- per day, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under loss of consortium, amount of Rs.40,000/- has not been granted to the claimants, in view of 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). Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been granted @ 6% per annum, which ought to have been 7.5% in view 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) .

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is delay of 192 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.1184 of 2020 has been filed, as such, delay of 192 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey appearing for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has submitted that so far the income is concerned, there is no evidence on record with regard to running a Grocery Shop apart from Sudha Milk Parlour, which is a co- operative. If any person is dealing with Sudha Products, but in absence of any contract, this Court cannot consider that the deceased was running a Grocery Shop and he was dealing with Sudha Milk Parlour/products, as such, the compensation, which has been computed on the basis of monthly income of Rs.4,000/- may not be interfered by this Court in absence of any evidence brought on record. So far amount under loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Mukesh Kumar

Dubey appearing for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has fairly submitted that it is applicable for the claimants, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the same may be granted. So far the interest is concerned, since this Court is considering the same @ 7.5% relying upon the judgment in the case of Dharampal (Supra), this Court may enhance the same. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case in a benevolent legislation and considering that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company, it would be proper to condone the delay.

Accordingly the delay of 192 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned and I.A. No.1184 of 2020 is allowed.

So far income of the deceased is concerned, this Court has no reason to interfere with the same in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to dealing with Sudha Products, as such, in absence of any documentary evidence, the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from running grocery shop in the village- Nagrikala, is considered to be reasonable, but it is apparent from the chart mentioned in Para-22 of the impugned award that amount of Rs.40,000/- has not been paid under the heading of loss of consortium in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which is hereby allowed.

So far interest is concerned, it appears that interest has been granted @6% per annum, which ought to have been @7.5% per annum, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal (supra), as such, the same is also allowed from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of indemnifying the Award.

Accordingly, the Insurance Company shall indemnify the Award as passed by this Court after deducting the amount already paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and pursuant to the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, within a reasonable time as the accident is of dated 10.12.2016.

The instant Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed with aforesaid modification.

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandeep/R.S-