Sumitra Devi & Others vs Jitendra Gupta & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3098 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                   M.A. No. 87 of 2019
                          ........

Sumitra Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants Versus Jitendra Gupta & Others .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.

........

05/25.08.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan and learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 / M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Bibhash Sinha.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has submitted that the claimants namely, (1) Sumitra Devi, wife of Mukund Mahto and mother of deceased Navin Kumar @ Rocki, (2) Makund Mahto, son of Late Shiv Nath Mahto and father of deceased Navin Kumar @ Rocki and (3) Sangita Kumari, daughter of Makund Mahto and minor sister of deceased Navin Kumar @ Rocki (Claimant no. 3 is minor being represented through her mother and natural guardian Claimant no. 1, Sumitra Devi), have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 20.11.2018 passed by learned District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bokaro in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No. 56 of 2017, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,43,920/- (out of which amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deducted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if paid), to be paid within one month from the date of award, failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay for penal interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the date of award till its realization.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants / claimants have preferred this appeal on the ground that the income of the deceased has been considered by the learned Tribunal on the lower side, considering the State of Jharkhand Notification contained in Memo No. 2/M.W-20-04/2015 Labour Employment 1481 dated 14.8.2015, whereby the Government has notified the rate of semi-skilled labour as Rs. 240/- per day,

which comes to Rs. 6240/- per month, [for 26 working days i.e. 30 days - 4 days (being Sunday)].

Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the order dated 26.08.2015 issued under the signature of Labour Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, which was published in the Jharkhand Gazette vide Notification dated 27.08.2015 and copy of the same is kept on record, whereby the wage rate of semi-skilled labourer has been considered to be Rs. 6,860/-, as the accident is of dated 03.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered, though the deceased died at the age of 23 years (as the date of birth of deceased Navin Kumar @ Rocki is 30.09.1993 as per Provisional Certificate of Matric of the deceased issued by Jharkhand Academic Council) and working as labourer engaged in White Washing and Painting works.

Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that 40% future prospect has to be granted to the dependents of the deceased 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-59.4), as the deceased died below the age of 40 years.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has not been awarded in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208.

Learned counsel, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, appearing on behalf of the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited has opposed the prayer and has submitted that so far future prospect and interest are concerned, the insurance company has not to say much, but so far the income of the deceased is concerned, the Insurance Company has referred the Notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand as contained in Memo No. 2/M.W.-20-04/2015 Labour Employment 1481 dated 14.8.2015, which has been relied by learned Tribunal, as such, the same may not be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited has further submitted that the entire amount has already been satisfied to the claimants on 29.12.2018 to the tune of Rs. 7,43,920/- and after that the claim application has been filed on 19.02.2019, as such, this Court may not interfere in the compensation with regard to monthly income of the deceased.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that claimants have preferred this appeal within time and this Court has to consider the just and fair compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639. Para-8 of the said judgment is profitably 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.

Since, the dispute is with regard to the income relying upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company upon the Notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand dated 14.08.2015 and other Notification of Government of Jharkhand dated 26.08.2015 relying upon by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that there is no dispute that the deceased Navin Kumar @ Rocki was working as Semi-skilled Labourer, as such, in a benevolent legislation, this Court is accepting the contention of learned counsel

for the appellants that wage of Semi-skilled person has to be Rs. 6860/- per month in view of the Notification dated 26.08.2015 issued by the Department of Labour, Employment, Training & Skill Development.

As such, this Court compute the compensation afresh, which is as follows:-

Income                             Rs. 6,860/- per month
Annual Income                      Rs. 6,860/- x 12 = Rs. 82,320/-
40% future prospect              Rs. 82,320/- + Rs. 32,928/-

Pranay Sethi (Para-59.4) (Supra) = Rs. 1,15,248/- 1/2th deduction towards personal Rs. 1,15,248/- x 1/2 = Rs. 57,624/-

and living expenses
Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Supra)
(Para-30)
Total Income                       Rs. 1,15,248/- - Rs. 57,624/-
                                   = Rs. 57,624-

Multiplier of 18 (as the deceased Rs. 57,624/- x 18 = Rs. 10,37,232/-

was in the age group of 21-25
years) Sarla Verma      (Para-42)
(Supra)
Conventional Head                  Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as loss of
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8)           estate, Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium
                                   and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses.
Total Compensation Amount          Rs. 10,37,232/- + Rs. 70,000/-
                                   = Rs. 11,07,232/-

The enhanced amount of Rs. 11,07,232/- shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till 29.12.2018, the date on which the Insurance Company has satisfied the award as passed by the learned Tribunal and on the balance amount interest @ 7.5% per annum shall be given from 29.12.2018 till today.

The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount after deducting the amount already paid on 29.12.2018 within a reasonable period as the accident is of dated 03.11.2016.

Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal is allowed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-