Jharkhand High Court
Sri Sugriv Kumar Pandey vs Surendra Prasad Singh on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 312 of 2014
-----
1. Sri Sugriv Kumar Pandey
2. Smt. Punam Devi ...... Appellants
Versus
1. Surendra Prasad Singh
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Karan, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
......
05/Dated: 15/01/2021. I.A. No.4678 of 2014
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 45 days
in filing the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.4678 of 2014 has
been filed, but no counter-affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company, as
such, considering it to be a benevolent legislation the delay in preferring the
appeal of 45 days may be condoned.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials
brought on record, it appears that reason shown for delay of 45 days is acceptable
to the Court as no counter-affidavit has been filed. Accordingly the delay of 45
days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4678 of 2014 stands allowed.
M.A. No. 312 of 2014
1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Claimants, namely, Sri Sugriv Kumar Pandey and Smt. Punam Devi
(unfortunate parents of the deceased- Sumit Kumar Pandey) are the appellants
before this Court and they have preferred this appeal jointly for enhancement of
the award dated 22.03.2014 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.219 of 2010
whereby without following the schedule of the MV Act, the learned Tribunal has
decided the issue by granting amount of Rs.2,00,00/- jointly in the name of the
applicants along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
settlement of the issue i.e. 18.07.2012 till the date of realization, subject to
deduction of payment made in compliance of the order passed under Section 140
of the MV Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased was a pillion
rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-01U-6459 and was going
from Ranchi to Ormanjhi on 01.11.2009, when reached near Birsa Javik Udhyan
at NH 33, the motorcycle collided head-on with another motorcycle bearing
registration no.JH-09D-2072 coming from Ormanjhi side. In the said accident
Sumit Kumar Pandey (deceased) sustained fatal injury and died at RIMS, Ranchi
during treatment. Because of pre-mature death of the deceased his dependent
parents suffered irreparable loss but the learned Tribunal without adjudicating the
issue in view of 2nd Schedule of MV Act i.e. for compensation to 3 rd party fatal
accident/injury, rather case of the claimants has been decided by considering a
lump sum compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been
paid from the date of settlement of issue without assigning any reason contrary to
Section 171 of the MV Act and 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.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (Insurance Company), Mr. Alok Lal
has submitted that the awarded amount along with interest in terms of the order
passed by the learned Tribunal has already been indemnified by the Insurance
Company, considering it to be just and fair compensantion, as such, this Court
may not interfere with the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (Insurance Company) has submitted
that the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is only insurer of the motorcycle bearing
registration no.JH-09D-2072 which collided with the motorcycle on which the
victim/deceased was pillion rider bearing registration no.JH0-1U-6459, but even
after holding issue no.5 that wrong has been committed by the driver of both the
motorcycles, the learned tribunal has passed the award in lump sump only against
the National Insurance Co. Ltd., as such, this Court may consider the same and
pass appropriate order as the liability can only be fastened upon the National
Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of one of the motorcycle to the extent of only 50%.
Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has thus submitted
that it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to apportion the award, in view
of such finding given, that accident occurred because of the composite negligence
of both the drivers of the motorcycles. But the learned Tribunal has not
apportioned the same on both vehicles or their insurer. Learned counsel for the
respondent has fairly submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the
Insurance Company for such relief before this Court rather the quantum of
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest has already been indemnified to the
claimants, considering it to be just and fair compensation, this Court may not
interfere with the same.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has further submitted that claimants
have only prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- where they have
been paid Rs.2,00,000/- with interest, as such, considering it to be fair and just
compensation, this Court may not interfere with the matter.
7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on
record. So far admitted facts of the case is that deceased- Sumit Kumar Pandey
was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no.JH-
01U-6459 coming from Ranchi towards Ormanjhi, but as soon as reached near
Birsa Javik Udhyan at NH 33 another motorcycle bearing registration no.JH-
09D-2072 coming from the side of Ormanjhi dashed the motorcycle on which the
deceased was a pillion rider and ultimately the deceased lost his life. One of the
motorcycles bearing registration no.JH-09D-2072 was duly insured before the
National Insurance Co. Ltd. having policy vide Exhibit-X/1 for the period in
which accident took place. The deceased as per the age mentioned in the Admit
Card of CBSE as well as mark-sheet of Matriculation was 17 years old, who lost
his life. It appears from 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which starts from
15 years of the age of the deceased and above that learned Tribunal has
completely erred in granting a lump sump compensation. The appellate court then
considered notional income which is Rs.3,000/- per month which is multiplied by
12, then comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum minus 50% (deduction towards personal
and living expenses) = then total comes to Rs.18,000/- in view of the para 30 of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) &
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121.
8. The deceased died at the age of 17 years and as per the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) at para 42 multiplier of 18 is
applicable for the deceased aged between 15-20 years, as such, this Court
considers it to be 18. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.18,000/- x 18 =
Rs.3,24,000/-.
9. Future prospect has to be paid to all the persons in view of Kirti & Arn. Etc.
vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal no.19-20 of 2021 (arising
out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.18728-29 of 2018) and in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.4,
40% future prospect is to be granted.
10. As such, Rs.3,24,000/- + Rs.3,24,000/- x 40% (= Rs.1,29,600/-) =
Rs.4,53,600/- + 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.5,23,600/-.
11. Then simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application till the date of actual payment made by the Insurance
Company is granted to the appellants/claimants.
12. So far the objection raised by the Insurance Company is concerned, that it
was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to apportion the share between the
two offending vehicles, but in absence of any appeal preferred by the
Insurance Company, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
So far the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants/claimants is
concerned, that the claimants has only claim of Rs.3,00,000/- as such, they
cannot claimed for more compensation. Considering the MV Act to be a
benevolent legislation, this Court considers that fair and just compensation
should be granted to the claimants.
13. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed with aforesaid computation
as made above.
14. The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the total compensation
amount of Rs.5,23,600/- after deducting the amount already indemnified along
with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application till the date of payment by the Insurance Company.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/R.S/
