Jharkhand High Court
Ruma Devi & Others vs Dhiraj Kumar & Others on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 114 of 2018
........
Ruma Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Dhiraj Kumar & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. D. C. Ghosh, Advocate.
........
08/13.07.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall
and learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited, Mr.
D.C. Ghosh.
The claimants, (1) Ruma Devi, (2) Amrita Kumari (3) Anita Kumari
and (4) Basanti Devi have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the
Award dated 01.12.2017 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-
M.A.C.T., Giridih in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 35/2015, whereby the claimants
have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,26,800/- along with
simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application i.e. 15.06.2015 till the realization of the amount of
compensation from O.P. No. 3, National Insurance Company Limited and
this amount shall be paid to the claimants within a period of 60 days from
the date of order, failing which, interest shall be calculated @ 9% per
annum.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased left
behind four dependents at the age of 29 years while he was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month, as a painter, but the learned Tribunal, in absence of
documentary evidence, has considered the income of a painter in the year
2015 as Rs.4,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that in the case
of Chameli Devi Vs. Jivrail Mian reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, the
Apex court has considered the income of a carpenter, who has lost his life
on 02.01.2001 as Rs.5,000/-, in absence of any documentary evidence,
whereas the deceased, Ravindra Singh lost his life on 23.04.2015, as such,
the income of the deceased was calculated on the lower side by the learned
Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
interest ought to have been awarded @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till the date of 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) and in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, the
compensation amount may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited, Mr.
D.C. Ghosh has submitted, that the compensation awarded is just and fair,
in absence of documentary evidence, it is very difficult to compute the
exact income of a painter and learned Tribunal has rightly considered the
income of a painter as Rs.4,000/-per month.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted
that even in the minimum wages notification issued by the Government,
no column with respect to painter has been mentioned, as such, this Court
may not interfere with the same.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted
that so far the interest is concerned, though this Court has taken consistent
view of interest @ 7.5% per annum, but since the interest has been
awarded @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application to
be paid within 60 days of the award, failing which interest @ 9% per
annum has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, as such, this Court may
not interfere with the same.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the
fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that in absence of
documentary evidence, it is very difficult for the learned Tribunal to
compute the income. In the present case, no notification has been issued
with respect to the minimum wages of a painter, but the Apex Court in the
case of Chameli Devi (Supra) has considered the income of a carpenter,
who lost his life on 02.01.2001 as Rs.5,000/- in absence of any
documentary evidence, as such, this Court is of the view that in a
benevolent legislation, the income should not have been less than 7,000/-
per month for painter, who was maintaining a family of five persons
including himself too, as the occurrence is of dated 23.04.2015.
Considering the same, income of deceased is considered to be Rs.
7,000/- per month. The number of dependents of the deceased is four in
number, as such, deduction under the personal and living expenses shall be
1/4th as per judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Supra)(Para-30). The deceased was below the age of 40 years, as
such, the future prospect shall be 40% in view of the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.4). Under
the conventional head, Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of
consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of
estate, shall be granted in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (Para-59.8).
Accordingly, this Court is computing the compensation afresh:-
Income Rs. 7,000/- per month
Annual Income Rs. 7,000/- x 12 = Rs. 84,000/-
40% future prospect Rs. 84,000/- + Rs. 33,600/-
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.4) (Supra) = Rs. 1,17,600/-
1/4th deduction towards personal Rs. 1,17,600/- x 1/4 = Rs. 29,400/-
and living expenses
Sarla Verma (Para-30) (Supra)
Total Income Rs. 1,17,600/- - Rs. 29,400/-
= Rs. 88,200/-
Multiplier of 17 (as the deceased Rs. 88,200/- x 17 = Rs. 14,99,400/-
was in the age group of 26 to 30
years) Sarla Verma (Para-42)
(Supra)
Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/-
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (Supra) i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium,
Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate.
Total Compensation Amount Rs. 14,99,400/- + Rs. 70,000/-
= Rs. 15,69,400/-
Accordingly, this court directs the National Insurance Company
Limited to satisfy the modified amount to the claimants along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application.
However, the amount, which has already paid under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act to the tune of Rs.50,000/- or the amount already
been paid by the Insurance Company pursuant to the impugned award
dated 01.12.2017 in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No. 35/2015, shall be
deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance amount shall be paid
within a reasonable time, as the accident is of dated 23.04.2015.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
