Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Sitara Bibi on 6 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 603 of 2016
------
Branch Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., through
Rishav Dev, Deputy Manager (Legal), Kolkata ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sitara Bibi
2. Salema Bibi
3. Sarfat Sk.
4. Islam Sk.
5. Guruwant Singh
6. Abdul Gaffar @ A. Gaffar ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
04/06.12.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bibhash Sinha and Mr.
Arvind Kr. Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants.
In this appeal the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the award
dated 17.09.2016 passed by District Judge-I cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim
Tribunal, Pakur, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 103 of 2014 by which an amount Rs. 17,
21,000/- has been awarded by way of compensation on account of death of Tahir
Sk. The Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the ground of
computation of the amount of compensation. The Insurance company submits that
under conventional head amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- has been awarded which is
much on the higher side and against the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.. He further submits that
the interest awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum is also on the higher side.
This is the only ground taken by the Insurance Company in this appeal.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, learned counsel submits that when the Insurance
Company is taking shelter of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case should also be followed. He submits that if the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed then amount of compensation will be much
more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. He submits that even if it is
considered that the compensation under conventional head has been fixed at a
higher rate, then it is also to be seen that compensation on account of "future
prospect" has not been awarded. He further submits that the deduction on account
of personal expenses should have been 1/4th and not 1/3rd as there are four
dependents. He submits even on recalculation, the amount of compensation will
more or less be the same, if not more.
Considering the aforesaid submission and the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), this Court requested both
the counsels to re-calculate the amount of compensation. Both the counsel after
recalculating the amount submits that in terms of the Judgment of the Pranay
Sethi (Supra) the actual amount comes to Rs. 17,41,760/-. In this case the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,21,000/- only along with the interest at the rate of 9
per cent per annum. Thus, after recalculation I find that the amount of
compensation which the Court has awarded is in fact Rs. 20,000/- less than what
the claimant is entitled to receive.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, learned counsel at this stage submits that his client is not
claiming that Rs. 20,000/- and the Insurance company be directed to re-calculate
the interest and pay the balance amount. Considering the submission, I find no
merits in this appeal. This appeal stands dismissed.
The statutory amount should be refunded to the Insurance Company by this
Court.
I find that Rs. 18,00,000/- was deposited before the Tribunal pursuant to the
order dated 02.05.2018 out of which Rs. 8,00,000/- is still lying with the Tribunal.
The said Rs. 8,00,000/- be immediately disbursed to the claimant. After calculating
the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum if any more amount needs to be
paid to the claimant, then the same should be paid within two months.
Rajnish/c,p.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
