Jharkhand High Court
Bahamuni Tudu vs Emanuel Soren & Another on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 180 of 2011
........
Bahamuni Tudu .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Emanuel Soren & Another .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. D.C. Ghose, Advocate.
........
12/02.02.2021
Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Sunita Kumari, on behalf
of the appellant.
Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that though the order
dated 21.01.2016 and 24.11.2020 have not been complied by the
appellant, but the enhancement appeal preferred against the award
dated 02.08.2011 in M.A.C.T. Case No.34/2008 passed by learned
District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur,
whereby the claimant - Bahamuni Tudu has been awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,12,000/- which shall be paid by the
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited may be
heard as there is no right of recovery in favour of the Insurance
Company from owner of the vehicle, as such, keeping the appeal
pending for appearance of owner of the offending vehicle since 2011
till date, is of no help for the Insurance Company.
Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that deceased
Ranjan Soren, who was a watchmen having bow and arrows, was in
an employment in Panem Coal Mines, Amrapara, Pakur. On
07.05.2008 at about 7.00 P.M. the deceased Ranjan Soren took his
meal and went out of his house to attend duty. At about 1 o'clock in
the night his wife Bahmani Tudu got information that deceased was
on his rounds on a Sawari vehicle bearing registration No. JH04B-
2455, but because of rash and negligent driving by the driver, the
vehicle turned turtle near Dalanghutu at Alubera village.
Consequently, the deceased sustained injury along with other
persons. He succumbed to the injury on way to hospital. His wife
reported the matter to the police and thereafter, Amrapara P.S. Case
No.20/2008 dated 08.05.2008 under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC
has been instituted, in which after investigation the chargesheet has
been submitted against the driver Shravan Kumar Bhagat @
Sharavan Kumar.
Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that though the
claimant has claimed the monthly income of the deceased from
Panem Coal Mines, Amrapara, Pakur to be Rs.6,000/- per month, but
in absence of any documentary evidence the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month.
Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that deceased
left behind his wife and the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd of
the income as personal and living expenses.
Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that learned
Tribunal has not granted future prospect nor amount of Rs.70,000/-
has been paid under conventional head.
The age of deceased was assessed to be 50 years by the doctor,
but he was actually 44 years and in view of the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vrs. Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier has been
rightly taken up as 13 considering the age of deceased to be 50 years.
The future prospect has not been granted in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. etc. Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. decided the issue in Civil Appeal
Nos.19-20 of 2021 on 05.01.2021 as well as in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 Para-59.3, as such, ought to be given future
prospect ought to be granted @ 30%. Thereafter, Rs.70,000/-
conventional head i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.
15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate.
Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that interest has
been awarded @ 6% per annum, which ought to be granted @ 7.5 %
from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 16.06.2008 till the
date of its realization, 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), though
the claimant has received Rs.50,000/- as interim compensation under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has
fairly submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
Company so as to have right of recovery against the owner, rather the
vehicle was insured as per the impugned order and the accident took
place on 07.05.2008. The appeal may be listed in the next week so as
to assist this Court in absence of the owner of the vehicle.
Considering the same, on joint prayer of the counsels, put up
this case in the next week.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
