Shama Parween & Others vs Anjan Ansari & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2755 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                  M.A. No. 186 of 2019
                         ........

Shama Parween & Others .... ..... Appellants Versus Anjan Ansari & Another .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.

........

06/06.08.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Mr. Afaque Rashidi and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. Pratyush Kumar.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this appeal has been preferred by the claimants namely, (1) Shama Parween, wife of Late Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna, (2) Miss Safat Parween, daughter of Late Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna, (3) Md. Jamauddin Ansari, son of Late Md. Salim Ansari (father of the deceased) and (4) Shahjadi Begum, wife of Md. Jumauddin Ansari (mother of the deceased) (Claimant no. 2 is minor represented through her mother Claimant no. 1, guardian and next friend) for enhancement of the award dated 28.02.2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 112 of 2013, whereby claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,75,400 along with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization to be paid within 30 days from the date of award.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in an unfortunate accident, which took place 11.02.2013, the deceased Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna, who was going to Village - Childag from his house situated at Village - Irba along with his friend namely, Wasim Akram, riding motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01P-5565 and as soon as they reached near Khelgaon at Depatoli at about 12:30 P.M., the offending vehicle, Trailer bearing registration no. NL-01G-8044 driven rashly and negligently coming

from opposite direction dashed against the said motorcycle, resulting to the death of Wasim Akram on the spot and Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna has sustained injury, who was admitted to RIMS, Ranchi. Thereafter for better treatment, he was shifted to Appollo Hospital, Ranchi, but subsequently, died during treatment at the age of 25 years.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased Abdul Wahid Ansari left behind widow, minor daughter and old aged parents and his income was Rs. 25,000/- per month as he was owner of one Maruti Car and two motorcycles and owner books have already been brought on record as Exhibits-4, 4/1 & 4/2 and was doing business of transportation and also of financial consultancy, apart from agriculture, but the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased, in absence of documentary evidence, as Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is meagre amount.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that so far interest is concerned that has been wrongly awarded from the date of award, instead of date of filing of the claim application in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, this Court may enhance the amount by computing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 25,000/- per month along with interest from the date of filing of claim application.

Learned counsel, Mr. Afaque Rashidi appearing on behalf of for the respondent no. 1, owner of the offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration no. NL-01G-8044 has submitted that the vehicle was duly insured before the New India Assurance Company Limited.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has further submitted that there is neither any dispute with regard to insurance coverage of the offending vehicle on the date of accident by New India Assurance Company Limited, nor there is any violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, nor the New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred any appeal against the same impugned award, as such, if the award is enhanced by this Court, it shall also be liability of the New India Assurance Company Limited to indemnify to the claimants.

Learned counsel, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, The New India Assurance Company Limited has submitted that though the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal, but the father of the deceased cannot be dependent upon his son, as such, this Court may consider the computation of compensation afresh in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of of Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 (Para-8). Para-8 of the aforesaid judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:

8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has further submitted that so far interest @ 12 % per annum is concerned, it is exorbitantly high, which ought to have been @ 7.5% per annum simple from the date of award as the claimants have delayed the disposal of claim application, as such, interest @ 7.5% per annum simple may be granted from the date of award, as no contrary material has been brought on record before the learned Tribunal by the claimants / appellants, so as to grant interest from the date of filing of the claim application.

Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has further submitted the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month for an accident

which took place on 11.02.2013, in absence of documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased, as such, this Court may not interfere with the income of the deceased and dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that two persons died in an accident. Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna, who sustained injury, was admitted to RIMS, Ranchi, from where, he was shifted to Appollo Hospital, Ranchi, but subsequently died during treatment and left behind his widow, minor daughter and old aged parents at the age of 25 years. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. Since the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal assailing that father of the deceased considered to be dependent, this Court consider that at the age of 70 years, the father of the deceased is dependent upon the family as the same has been specifically mentioned in memo of appeal.

So far the income of the deceased is concerned, this Court has considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the Exhibits-4, 4/1 & 4/2, it appears that the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01P-5565, on which the deceased was moving belongs to the deceased. Apart from this, another motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01AX-0287 and Maruti Car bearing registration no. JH-01NL-3419 also belonged to the deceased. It means that the deceased has sufficient income to maintain one car and two motorcycles. However, there is contrary evidence with regard to transportation business and financial consultancy in absence of any documentary evidence, as such, this Court is not inclined to accept such submissions, but on the other hand, this Court is also not satisfied with the income of the deceased as considered by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month for an accident dated 11.02.2013.

The Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi & Others Vs. Jivrail Mian & Others reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (SC) has considered the income of the deceased, who was Carpenter and lost his life in a motor vehicle accident on 02.01.2001, in absence of

documentary evidence to be Rs. 5,000/-, whereas the deceased Abdul Wahid Ansari @ Munna was owner of one Maruti Car and two motorcycles, but he had not paid income tax to the Government, as such, his income cannot be more than the income taxable under the law. But this Court has to consider the just and fair compensation as in the year 2001, if a person like Carpenter can earn Rs. 5,000/- per month, the income of the deceased in the present case cannot be less than Rs. 12,000/- per month as he was owner of one Maruti Car and two motorcycles and dependents are his wife, minor daughter and old aged parents, as such, this Court consider the income of the deceased, in absence of any documentary evidence to be Rs. 12,000/- per month.

As such, this Court computing the compensation afresh.

Income                             Rs. 12,000/- per month
Annual Income                      Rs. 12,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,44,000/-
40% future prospect               Rs. 1,44,000/- + Rs. 57,600/-

Pranay Sethi (Para- 59.4) (Supra) = Rs. 2,01,600/- 1/4th deduction towards personal Rs. 2,01,600/- x 1/4 = Rs. 50,400/- and living expenses Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121
(Para-30)
Total Income                       Rs. 2,01,600/- - Rs. 50,400/-
                                   = Rs. 1,51,200/-

Multiplier of 18 (as the deceased Rs. 1,51,200/- x 18 = Rs. 27,21,600/- was in the age group of 21-25 years) Sarla Verma (Para-42) (Supra) Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- for loss of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (Supra) estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses.

Total Compensation Amount Rs. 27,21,600/- + Rs. 70,000/-

= Rs.27,91,600/-

The enhanced amount of Rs. 27,91,600/- shall be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of award, as nothing contrary has been brought on record by the claimants / appellants against the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the delay due to laches on the part of the claimants only, as such, interest has been awarded from the date of award.

However, if any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act or pursuant to the award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, the same shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid within a reasonable period as the accident is of dated 11.02.2013 and if not, the entire amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants.

Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-