Shankar Thakur And Anr vs Rohitash Ji And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3025 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    [Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
                           M.A. No. 305 of 2018
       Shankar Thakur and Anr.                        .... .. ...          Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
      Rohitash Ji and Ors.                                      .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                         ...........

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

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ..........

05 / 23.08.2021. I.A. No.4680 of 2018

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay of 4 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.4680 of 2018 has been filed, as such, considering the delay of 4 days, the same may be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3- Insurance Company has opposed the same.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record and in a benevolent legislation, the claimants have preferred this appeal after delay of 4 days, as such, in view of no counter-affidavit filed by the Insurance Company, the same is hereby condoned.

I.A. No.4680 of 2018 is hereby allowed.

M.A. No. 305 of 2018 Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.02.2014 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (MACT) Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No.104/2014 whereby the claimants (1) Shankar Thakur s/o Paltan Thakur and (2) Rita Devi w/o Shankar Thakur have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,64,000/- along with interest @6% per annum after deducting Rs.50,000/-, which has been paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till its realization.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased- Abhishek Kumar was working in H.C.L. his salary was Rs.8,340/- per month. The agreement paper regarding salary issued by the H.C.L and the appointment letter have been brought on record as Ext.2 & 4.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned

Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, in absence of documentary evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased died at the age of 19 years, as such, dependents are entitled for 50% of the future prospect, in view of the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.3. as the deceased was a permanent employee of HCL.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that learned Tribunal has granted interest without assigning any reasons from the date of passing of the award and that too @ 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 & Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208 and Section 171 of the M.V. Act, no reason has not been assigned by the learned Tribunal, as such delay was due to claimants, as such, the amount may be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that this appeal has been preferred with delay of 5 days and for condonation of the same I.A. No.4680/2018 has been preferred.

Learned counsel for M/s New India Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Manish Kumar has oppose the prayer and submitted that this amount has already been indemnified by the Insurance Company to the claimants, as such, there is delay of 5 days in preferring the appeal and same may be condoned.

Learned counsel for M/s New India Insurance Company Ltd. has further submitted that exhibit-4 shows that the letter of appointment, but deceased has not joined, as such, income cannot be considered to be an income of the permanent employee, which ought to have been during the training period, as such, future prospect, may be granted, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) at Paragraph 59.4 to the tune of 40%.

Learned counsel for M/s New India Insurance Company Ltd. has further submitted that since the quantum of compensation has been assailed by the claimants, as such, this Court may reduce the amount granted under the conventional head contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) i.e. Rs.15,000/- for loss of Estate, Rs.15,000/- for Funeral Expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium under the conventional head, which has been wrongly granted by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, as such, the same may be reduced.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been rightly granted @ 6% per annum, which may not interfere by this Court as there is delay of 5 days in preferring the appeal.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties and the impugned award, it appears that the amount has not been paid as just and fair compensation, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 at Para-8, which has been referred above :-

"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 the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."

In absence of any reason for not considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,340/- as this amount is not coming under the tax liability, as such, this Court consider that the learned Tribunal ought to have consider Exhibit-4 and the salary of the deceased to be Rs.8,340/- which is lost to be dependents.

Accordingly, the income of the deceased is calculated to be Rs.8,340/-. The new calculation chart would be as follows :-

Annual Income Rs.1,00,80/- (Rs.8,340/- x 12) 1/2 deduction towards personal and living Rs.1,00,80/- minus Rs.50,040/- = expenses as deceased had three Rs.50,040/-

dependents [Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 30] Multiplier as 18 as deceased was in the Rs.50,040/- x 18 = Rs.9,00,720/- age group of 15-20 [Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 42] Future Prospect @ 50% [National Rs.9,00,720/-+ Rs.4,50,360 = Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Rs.1351,080/- Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4] Conventional Head [National Insurance Rs.70,000/- Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.8 i.e. loss of Estate- Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium-

 Rs.40,000/-    and     funeral     expense-
 Rs.15,000/-]
 Total Compensation Amount                   Rs.1351,080/-       +      Rs.70,000/-      =
                                             Rs.14,21,080/-

Since the compensation computed is more than the award passed by the learned Tribunal, as such, is being enhanced.

The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the amount of Rs.14,21,080/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208 as well as in view of Section 171 of the MV Act.

However, the amount already paid under Section 140 of the MV Act and pursuant to the award passed by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the same and the balance amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a reasonable time as the accident is of dated 25.05.2014.

Accordingly, the instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed with aforesaid modification.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/tarun