Keshaw Kumar Bhagat vs Vikram Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2335 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            M.A. No. 278 of 2015
                                       ------

         Keshaw Kumar Bhagat                                     ...Appellant(s).
                                 Versus
         1. Vikram Kumar

         2. The New India Assurance Company Limited. ... Respondent(s)
         CORAM       :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                            Through: Video Conferencing
                                       ------
         For the Appellant(s)          : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
         For the Respondent            : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate

05/14.07.2021: 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.

In this application the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount which has been awarded to the claimants on account of death caused to his son who died in motor vehicle accident.

The fact of accident and death of the deceased is admitted so is the age of the deceased which is 20 years. It is also admitted that the death has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Bolero having Registration No. JH-01Q-9177. Further the vehicle was ensured with New India Assurance Company Limited is also not disputed nor it is the case in which there is violation of terms of the policy. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award. The only dispute raised in this appeal is with regard to the assessment of income of the deceased and the multiplier.

Considering the nature of this case, the dispute lies in very narrow compass. It is not necessary for the Court to deal in details about the factual aspect of the case. Only the issue which is in dispute is with regard to the assessment of income of the deceased and the multiplier. The age of the deceased is 20 years thus as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the multiplier would be 18, considering the age of the deceased.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was earning something between 12,000/- to 20,000/- per month which has not been taken note of by the tribunal. He also submits that the deceased was a student also. He further submits that the tribunal should have come to the conclusion as to what would be the just and proper compensation in view of the Judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

After going through the impugned order, I find that court below has accepted the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the parents of the deceased. In this case the age of the deceased was 20 years. Considering the age of the deceased, the correct multiplier would be 18 in this case.

So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, I find that in para 16, the tribunal has dealt with the income of the deceased. In the claim application, it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- whereas in the evidence claimants have adduced oral evidence stating that the deceased was earning Rs, 30,000/- to 35,000- per month. The Tribunal considered the aforesaid evidence and found that the same is beyond the pleadings. Further from the evidence the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was a student. Considering the entire evidence the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month. I find no illegality in the aforesaid assessment.

Thus, this Court holds that the amount of Rs 5,000/- per month is the correct income assessed by the tribunal. Considering the aforesaid two factors now this Court calculates as to what would be the just and fair compensation.

Rs. 5000 (monthly income) x12 x18 (multiplier) =Rs. 10,80,000/-. Since the deceased died unmarried, 50% has to be deducted from the aforesaid income, thus balance amount comes to Rs. 5,40,000/-.

In terms of Judgment of Pranay Sethi, (supra) 40 % has to be added towards future prospect. Thus the amount comes to Rs. 540,000/- + 40% of Rs. 5,40,000/-=Rs. 7,56,000/-.

In terms of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), over and above the aforesaid amount, Rs. 70,000/- has to be added under conventional head. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs 8,26,000/-.

In this case the tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,20,000/-. Thus, this Court feels that claimant is entitled to receive further amount of Rs. 2,06,000/-.

This amount of Rs. 2,06,000/- (Two lacs six thousand) which the claimants are entitled to receive should be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of judgment of the Tribunal, till actual payment is made.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed.

Rajnish/c.p. 2                                               (ANANDA SEN, J.)