Jharkhand High Court
Mangee Mundain vs Mahabir Kumar Mantri on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 257 of 2014
-----
1. Mangee Mundain
2. Budhwa Munda
3. Sende Munda
4. Chemu Munda
5. Saniyan Munda ...... Appellants
Versus
1. Mahabir Kumar Mantri
2. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
......
07/Dated: 08/01/2021.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for
enhancement of the award dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned District Judge-
cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega in M.A.C.C. No. No.03 of 2009
whereby the claimants (Mangee Mundain and her minor children namely,
Budhwa Munda, Sende Munda, Chemu Munda and Saniyan Munda) have been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,17,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing i.e. 27.01.2009 to be paid within two months,
failing which the interest shall be paid @ 12 % per annum from the date of the
order till the date of payment besides the interest pendente lite.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has
wrongly considered the income of the deceased and also applied wrong multiplier
and under the conventional head less amount has been paid and future prospect
has not been given as well as interest has also been paid on the lower side, as
such, this Court may consider the same and enhance the compensation amount
considering the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana
Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was a
shopkeeper which will be apparent from the impugned award mentioned at para
12 that he was earning monthly income of Rs.4,000/- from Stationary-Kirana
Shop, but in a Rural side all shops are not registered or have registration number
and there is no name of the shop rather shops are run on the credit of the name of
owner of the shop, as such, it is not proper for learned Tribunal to disbelieve that
deceased was self-employed and running a grocery shop in his area.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian,
reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, para 20, the Apex Court has considered the
income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- even in absence of documentary
evidence, when the deceased was a carpenter and the occurrence is of the year,
2001, but in the present case the claimants have only claimed the income of the
deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month, as such, this Court may consider the same
and grant Award considering the future prospect and other benefits in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that
impugned award is just and fair compensation which has been passed by the
learned Tribunal on the basis of available materials brought on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. G.C. Jha has further submitted
that learned Tribunal has rightly considered that since no documents has been
filed on behalf of the applicant to show that there was any such shop in the name
of her deceased husband, hence under these facts and circumstances the notional
income of the deceased has rightly been taken to the Rs.3,000/- per month and
thus his yearly income comes to Rs.36,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. G.C. Jha has fairly submitted
that learned Tribunal has committed error by deducting 1/3 rd towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased which ought to have been 1/4 th considering the
number of dependents to be five, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
9. After hearing the parties, the admitted facts between the parties are as such:-
Deceased- Hadua Munda died on 08.07.2007 at the age of 45 years leaving
behind his dependents wife:-
(1) Mangee Mundain and her minor children namely,
(2) Budhwa Munda,
(3) Sende Munda,
(4) Chemu Munda and
(5) Saniyan Munda.
Deceased died in a road accident by bus bearing registration no.BR-14P/3366
coming from the Bano side and the deceased was a foot walker on the side of the
road and near the shop of Deonish Munda of Village Sariba he got fatal injuries
and he fell down and died at the spot. The vehicle was duly insured before the
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide Insurance Policy No.
540900/31/07/01/00000245 valid from 22.05.2007 to 21.05.2008. In view of the
Exhibits and evidence brought on record, the income of the deceased from his
stationery and kirana shop has not been considered by the learned Tribunal to the
tune of Rs.4,000/- per month in absence of documentary evidence, contrary to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (supra).
10. Thus, this Court considers the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per
month. The computation of compensation shall be on the basis of income, age of
deceased and size of family i.e. number of dependents.
Annual income =Rs.4,000/- x 12 = 48,000/-. Then deduction towards personal
and living expenses as 1/4th in view of para 30 of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), i.e. Rs.48,000/- minus
Rs.48,000/- x 1/4th (Rs.12,000/-) Total= Rs.36,000/- which shall be given with
25% as future prospect in view of para 59.4 of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
11. Then total income is Rs.36,000/- + [Rs.36,000/- x 25% - Rs.9,000/-] i.e. Rs.
36,000/- + Rs.9,000/- = Rs.45,000/-.
After multiplying with multiplier 14, amount comes to Rs. 45,000/- x 14 =
Rs.6,30,000/-.
12. Then Rs.6,30,000/- + Rs.70,000/- as conventional head in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
(for the loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, for loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and for
funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- is to be given).
Then total compensation comes to Rs.6,30,000/- + Rs.70,000/- =
Rs.7,00,000/-.
13. As such, total compensation comes to Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- already
paid under Section 140 M.V. Act, shall be deducted then the amount will be
Rs.7,00,000/- minus Rs.50,000/- = Rs.6,50,000/- which shall be paid to the
claimants along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
application till the date of realization within a reasonable period in view of
Section 171 MV Act and read with the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported
in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC.
14. The amount already paid, if any, shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount.
15. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.
sandeep/R.S- (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
