Jharkhand High Court
Shakuntala Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 14 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 556 of 2015
------
1. Shakuntala Devi
2. Umesh Rana @ Umesh Sharma @ Umesh Mistry ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
2. Additional Collector, Chatra ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : AAG II
06/14.07.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has
been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an application for enhancement of compensation which was
awarded by learned District Judge II, cum Additional Claim Tribunal, Chatra in
Claim Case No. 15 of 2009 by award dated 31.08.2015.
After hearing the parties, I find that the fact of accident is admitted. It is
also admitted that the deceased who was aged about 25 years died in an
accident involving a Commander jeep bearing Registration No. BR 13C 0060
which was a escort jeep of the State and was under the VIP duty. The factum
of accident is not disputed.
The dispute raised by the claimant is in relation to the quantum of
compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier
and wrongly assessed the income of the deceased. He also submits that future
prospect has not been considered in this case. He prays for enhancement of
the awarded amount.
Considering the submission of the parties and after going through the
record, I find that the deceased was 25 years of age. Thus, the correct
multiplier would be 18, in place of 17, which has been awarded.
So far as the income of the deceased is concerned the claimant
produced a certificate i.e. document which was marked as X/3 which suggests
that the deceased was earning Rs. 5250/- per month, from Sajkala Furniture
Shop, where the deceased was employed as a carpenter. The court below did
not accept the said certificate only on the ground that author of the said
certificate was not produced as a witness nor any agent was produced to verify
the said certificate. The Tribunal, thus, has taken the income of the deceased
as Rs. 3,000/-per month which is the notional income.
In this context, I find from the fact and the pleading of the claimants that
the deceased was working as a carpenter in the aforesaid shop, which has not
been denied specifically by the opposite party-State. The State who is the
owner of the vehicle has also not produced any evidence nor controverted the
aforesaid claim of the claimants. Thus, one fact remains established that the
deceased was working as a carpenter. Since the deceased was working as
carpenter his income could not have been assessed on notional basis. Though,
I found that document which is marked as X/3 was not exhibited properly, yet I
am of the view that the deceased earning must be Rs.4500/- per month, not
less than that. Thus Rs. 4500/- is taken to be the monthly income of the
deceased.
After going through the Judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi
and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, I find that in this case no future
prospect has been awarded. The claimants are entitled for future prospect. In
this case 40 % on account of future prospect is fit and proper according to his
age. Under conventional head, only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded
which is not in terms of the said judgment, in fact it should be Rs. 70,000/-.
Considering what has been held above, the compensation has to be
recalculated by this court to find out what would be the just compensation. The
assessment thus can be made as follows:-
Rs. 4500(monthly income) x12 x18(multiplier)= Rs. 9,72,000/- .
Rs. 9,72,000x ½= Rs.4,86,000/- (less 50 per cent on account of
dependency as deceased was unmarried).
40 % of Rs.4,86,000= Rs. 1,94,400/-.
Now Rs. 4,86,000+Rs.1,94,400= Rs. 6,80,400/-
Rs.6,80,400+ Rs. 70,000(Conventional head)=Rs.7,50,400/-
It has been submitted that awarded compensation has not yet been paid
to the claimant. Thus I direct the State authorities to pay the aforesaid amount
along with 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the
actual payment.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands
allowed.
Rajnish/c.p. 2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
