Jharkhand High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Manorama Devi on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
M.A. No. 281 of 2014
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Smt. Manorama Devi
2.Dr. Santosh Kumar
3.Ashok Kumar
4.Prabha Kumari
5. Sri Balbir Singh .. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
..........
09 / 19.01.2021. I.A. No.4079 of 2016
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 15 days
in filing the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.4079 of 2016 has
been filed, but no counter-affidavit has been filed by claimants/respondents, as
such, considering the same, the delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal may be
condoned.
After hearing of the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of
materials brought on record, it appears that proper reason has been shown for
delay of 15 days. As such, the delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4079 of 2016 stands allowed.
M.A. No.281 of 2014
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-The
National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the award dated
31.03.2014 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum- M.A.C.T., Judge, Dhanbad, in
Title (M.V.) Suit No.222 of 2009, whereby the claimants, 1.Smt. Manorama Devi,
2.Dr. Santosh Kumar, 3.Ashok Kumar and 4. Prabha Kumari have been awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.23,22,900 along with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the application till realization from defendant No.2-The National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased (Mahendra
Singh), a Teacher in a school, was travelling on his Hero Honda Splendor
Motorcycle bearing Registration No.JH10K-9845 from Ishri to Block Education
Office, Dumri for official work. As soon as he reached near Village- Shankardih, a
Truck bearing Registration No.HR-38Z 8785 came in high speed from behind, in
rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, due to which the deceased
sustained serious head injuries and in course of treatment, died on 24.11.2007 at
2.30 p.m.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased without deducting the
tax component in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 at Para
59.4.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has also paid excess amount under the conventional head contrary to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has
already taken note of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh vs.
Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, as such, the learned Tribunal ought to
have considered the same in view of judgment passed by the Larger Bench in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Learned counsel for the appellant has thus, submitted that the amount of
compensation is liable to be reduced in view of the aforesaid submissions.
Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has submitted that the revised
pay certificate with enclosure of the deceased has been brought on record as Exhibit-
2, after the deduction of tax, such amount has been calculated. Apart from that the
Future Prospect of the deceased has not been granted by the learned Tribunal only on
the ground that while adjudicating the issue of the salary 6 th Pay Commission has
been considered, but future prospect is not only the enhancement in the salary, but
other aspects which the learned Tribunal has not considered, as such, in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and recent
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. Etc. vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 decided on 5th
January, 2021, the future prospect may also be considered. Apart from that interest
has been paid on lower side, @ 6% per annum which ought to have been granted
@7.5% per annum in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Dharmpal and Sons vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2008 (4) JCR 79
(SC).
Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has fairly submitted that no
appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the Award, as such, in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash &
Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639, this Court
may not reduce the compensation in absence of any appeal preferred by the
claimants and dismiss the appeal in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra).
Since the Exhibit-2 i.e. revised pay certificate with enclosure is a moot
question of controversy, as such, it would be proper to verify from the fact that
whether tax component of the deceased has been considered by the learned Tribunal
while computing the compensation or not? As it appears that both the counsels are
interpreting the said document in their own way.
Accordingly the instant Misc. Appeal is Admitted for hearing.
Call for the L.C.R.
No notice is required as the counsel for the claimants/respondents has already
appeared.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/R.S.
