Md. Kadir Ansari @ Kadir Ali vs Navin Singh & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 30 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               [Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
                           M.A. No. 412 of 2014
         1.Md. Kadir Ansari @ Kadir Ali
         2.Fatima Bibi                         .... .. ...     Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
          Navin Singh & Ors.                          .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                           ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate.

       For the Resp. No.1              : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
       For the Resp. No.2              : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate
       For the Resp. No.3              : Mr. B. Chatterjee, Advocate
       For the Resp. No.4              : Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
                           ..........

07 / 05.01.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants/claimants, Md. Kadir Ansari @ Kadir Ali and Fatima Bibi have preferred this Misc. Appeal for enhancement of the award dated 18.08.2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, M.V.A.C.T., Giridih, in M. V. Claim Case No.22 of 2008, whereby claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization to the claimants through cheque or bank draft within two months from the date of the order.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased (Late Alamgir Ansari) died at the age of about 22 years in an unmarried stage while he was going on Hero Honda Splendour Motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR- 17L 9292 on 15.03.2008 along with pillion rider, Daud Ansari from Village- Telodih to Pachamba. As soon as they reached near Health Centre, Pachamba, a coal loaded truck bearing Registration No.BR-13D 9231 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed and collided in the rear portion of the motorcycle, due to which deceased (Late Almgir Ansari) died at the spot. The said truck was insured before the respondent No.3- The New India Assurance Company Limited vide Policy No.540604/31/07/01/00001415 valid for the period from 03.07.2007 to midnight of 02/07.2008.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased had an income of Rs.3,000/- per month while working as Salesman in a Medicine Shop and died the age of about 22 years, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the multiplier by not considering the age of the deceased rather it was considered on the basis of age of the claimants. Thus, the learned Tribunal has

wrongly considered multiplier of 11 which ought to have been 18 in view of the judgment of passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 16 SCC 121.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Future prospect of the deceased has not been given nor the amount under the conventional head has been granted rightly in view 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 at Para 59.8 wherein a sum of total Rs.70,000/- has been allowed [loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-] against which the learned Tribunal has only granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- only to the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has thus, submitted that amount of compensation may be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- The New India Assurance Company Limited has submitted that Future Prospect cannot be granted to a person who has no permanent job nor self-employed or having a fixed salary in view of the judgment of passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at Paras 59.3 and 59.4.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has further submitted that interest has been awarded @9% per annum which is contrary to 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 wherein interest ought to have been 7.5% per annum.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has thus, submitted that this matter may be heard along with other similar matters/persons like the deceased, who are claiming Future Prospect.

Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh has submitted that vehicle was duly ensured before the Insurance Company, as such, liability is upon the Insurance Company to indemnify the Award.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has thus, submitted that the contest is between the claimants and the Insurance Company.

Considering such submissions, let the matter be listed along with other similar matters where Future Prospect of such deceased are subjudice before this Court.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/R.S.