Jharkhand High Court
Ram Nagina Singh vs Basant Sahu on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 278 of 2016
-----
1. Ram Nagina Singh
2. Purnima Kumari. .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Basant Sahu
2. Deepak Sahu (Nag)
3. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindpiri, Ranchi
... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate.
For the Insurance Co: M/s Alok Lal, Advocate.
For resp. no. 1 & 2: Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate.
-----
05/15.7.2021: 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 of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. At the request of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at this
stage itself.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and
Award dated 17.3.2016 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal (MACT)-III, Gumla in MAC Case No. 04/2011 on the ground that
the Tribunal has assessed the compensation amount, wrongly assessing the
age of the deceased. It is submitted that the method adopted to calculate the age
of the deceased is unknown, and can be said to be perverse.
5. It is submitted that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the
time of accident, but the court below has presumed the age of the deceased as
65 years, which is without any basis. Counsel for the appellant further submits
that after considering the age as 65 years, no multiplier was applied in this case
by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that only Rs.70,000/- has been awarded on
account of medical expenses and loss of consortium. He further submits that no
future prospect has been awarded in this case. He also submits that in view of
what has been pleaded before this Court, the appellants are entitled for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits
that there is no fault in the award. He further submit that it was the duty of the
appellant to produce the proper evidence in respect of his contention that the
deceased was 50 years old. He also submits that admittedly, one of the claimant,
who is the husband, is a government employee and his pension paper should
have been brought on record, which would have resolved the dispute. He also
submits that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was earning
by selling vegetables. This submission is nothing but after thought of the
claimants. He lastly submits that the Tribunal has granted 9% p.a. interest on the
awarded amount, which is on much higher side. He admits that the Insurance
Company has not filed any cross-objection or appeal against the award.
7. The deceased, who is the wife of the appellant No. 1, met with an
accident involving a Tempo bearing registration No. JH07C 7121. It is the case of
the appellant that the deceased was a vegetable seller and was earning
Rs.5000/- per month. As per the claimants, the appellant was 50 years of age at
the time of accident. While going through the record, I find that there is no
dispute about the accident of Tempo bearing registration No. JH-07C-7121,
resulting in death of the deceased. The vehicle was admittedly insured, which is
also evident from the record and is admitted by the parties. This Court also finds
that the Tribunal has rightly found that there is no violation of the terms of the
policy.
8. The dispute, which needs to be adjudicated at the first instance is
what was the correct age of the deceased? In the Claim Application, it has been
claimed that the age of the deceased was 50 years. The postmortem report
suggests that the deceased was 55 years old. Surprisingly, the Tribunal had
taken very strange approach. The Tribunal concluded that since the age of her
husband, one of the claimants, herein, is 70 years thus, it cannot be accepted
that the age difference between husband and wife was 15 years. The Tribunal
thus concluded that the age of the deceased should be 65 years at the time of
accident.
8. This Court cannot agree with the process, which the Tribunal has
adopted. In view of the admitted fact that there is a documentary evidence i.e.
postmortem report, in which the age of the deceased was assessed, the Tribunal
could not have calculated the age in the manner it ha been done. The approach
of the Tribunal is wrong. In view of the postmortem report, this Court is of the
opinion that the age of the deceased should be considered to be 55 years at the
time of death.
9. Now, as this Court has already accepted the age of the deceased as
55 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier theory must be made
applicable. As per age, multiplier of 11 (eleven) is to be applied. So far as income
of the deceased is concerned, it is submitted that the deceased was earning
Rs.5000/- per month by selling vegetables, but there is no cogent evidence in
respect of said fact. Similarly, it cannot be held that the deceased was not
contributing anything in her family. Even if it is considered that the deceased was
a house wife, her notional income of Rs.3000/- per month should be considered
as contribution of the deceased towards her family. So far as future prospect is
concerned, I find that the same was not considered by the Tribunal in terms of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in
(2017)16 SCC 680. In view of the said judgment, 10% enhancement should be
granted as future prospect.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the calculation of compensation will
read as follows:-
Rs.3000 X 12 X 11 (Multiplier)= Rs.3,96,000/-
Rs.3,96,000- less 1/3 as personal expenses= Rs.2,64,000/-
Rs.2,64,000 + 10% (as future prospect)= Rs.2,90,400/-
I find that Rs. 70,000/- has already been granted under the
conventional head and medical expenses, which need not be disturbed. Thus on
the aforesaid head, Rs.70,000/- should be given to the claimants. Thus
Rs.2,90,400+Rs.70,000/-= Rs. 3,60,400/- (Rs. three lakhs, sixty thousand four
hundred) will be just and fair compensation.
11. Insurance Company has submitted that they have already satisfied
the award along with interest on the same.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts, I direct the Insurance Company to
pay the balance amount after deducting Rs.20,000/-(already paid) to the
claimants within a period of two months along with interest @ 5% p.a. from the
date of award till the payment.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands
disposed of.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
