Jharkhand High Court
Harbinder Kaur vs Utility Transport Company on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 304 of 2016
----
1. Harbinder Kaur
2. Jaswant Singh
3. Premjeet Kaur ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Utility Transport Company, Chandmari, Nagaland, Kohima 797001,
Local Office at Kalimati Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.
2. M/s Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Voltas
House, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Debesh Chandra Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
----
12/ 15.07.2021 This appeal is directed against the award dated 22.02.2016
passed by the District Judge III-cum-M.A.C.T., Jamshedpur in Compensation
Case No.239 of 2014.
2. This appeal is by the appellant-claimants, who seek enhancement
of the quantum of compensation awarded to them. Claimants are the father,
mother and sister of the deceased. The deceased Ramneek Singh died in a
road accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. NL 01G 5279. As per
the claim application, deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from
business and was aged about 27 years at the time of death.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the factum of death is
admitted. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied '15' as multiplier in
the instant case, which should be much more. He submits that considering the
fact that there was a sibling and that too unmarried sister, the Tribunal could
not have deducted ½ of the amount on account of personal expenses. He
submits that no future prospect has been awarded and on account of
conventional head only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded in place of Rs.70,000/-.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company
submitted that the deceased died unmarried, thus, 50% has rightly been
deducted towards personal expenses. He submits that there is nothing on
record to suggest that the deceased was having any future prospect.
5. After hearing the parties, considering the nature of dispute, which
is only in relation to the quantum, I am not writing in detail about the factum of
accident and the other aspects, instead, I am confining this judgment only with
respect to the points which have been raised by the parties, i.e., in relation to
quantum of compensation. Be it noted that the factum of accident and death is
admitted and so is the fact that the vehicle bearing registration No. NL 01G
5279 was involved in the accident, which occurred because of rash and
negligent driving. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle was duly registered
with the authority and had a valid insurance and other permits. There is
nothing on record to suggest that there was any violation of the conditions of
Insurance policy. That being so, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance
Company to pay the amount of compensation. So far as the quantum of
compensation is concerned, I find that there are Income Tax Returns, which
suggests that the gross income of the deceased was Rs.2,09,389/- for the
assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal, finding that there was no deduction in
terms of Chapter VI 'A' of the Income Tax Act, deducted 10% on the aforesaid
amount and assessed the annual income as Rs.1,88,450/-. I find no illegality in
the aforesaid assessment.
6. Next question, which falls for consideration, is what would be the
correct multiplier. The deceased was 27 years of age and there is no evidence
to the contrary. Considering the aforesaid age and as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the correct multiplier would be '17'. So far as annual
dependency is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has deducted 50% on
account of personal expenses. In this context, be it noted that deceased left
behind his old parents and unmarried sibling. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi &
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that when there is younger
sibling, 1/3rd should be deducted from the annual income. In this case, I find
that there is a sibling of the deceased, but, whether she was younger or not, it
is not clear, yet, the fact remains that she was unmarried. Considering the fact
that the sibling is an unmarried sister, this Court, applying the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , feels that 1/3rd
would have been the correct deduction on account of personal expenses.
7. Further, I find that no future prospect has been awarded in this
case. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants are entitled for future prospects. Considering
the age of the deceased, the future prospect in this case would be 40% of the
awarded compensation. On account of conventional head, the claimants are
entitled to get Rs.70,000/- whereas in the instant case only a sum of
Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. Now, quantifying the amounts of
compensation on different counts as held above, the amount of just and fair
compensation would be as under: -
Sl. Description Amount
No.
1 Amount of compensation taking annual income with multiplier of '17' (1,88,450 x 17) 32,03,650.00
rd
2 Amount of compensation deducting 1/3 on account of personal expenses 21,35,767.00
3 Amount of compensation adding 40% on account of future prospect 29,90,074.00
4 Amount of compensation adding the amount of Rs.70,000/- under conventional head 30,60,074.00
7. Thus, this Court feels that the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,60,074/-
is the just and fair compensation in this case.
8. It has been submitted during argument that the entire amount of
compensation has been paid along with interest. The total amount of
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.14,43,375/-. Thus, the
balance amount, which the claimants are entitled to receive is Rs.16,16,699/-.
The said amount of Rs.16,16,699/- should be paid to the claimants within three
months from today. The aforesaid amount will carry an interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment.
9. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed with the modification in the
award dated 22.02.2016 passed by the District Judge III-cum-M.A.C.T.,
Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.239 of 2014 to the aforesaid extent.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
