Jharkhand High Court
Suchita Kerketta vs Kusum Prakash on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 24 of 2016
1. Suchita Kerketta
2. Asbhini Kerketta
3. Ulima Kerketta
4. Anuradha Kerketta
5. Nishita Kerketta .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Kusum Prakash
2. The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ranchi
.... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr.Arvind Kumar Lal, Advocate
FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
------
11/20.07.2021
In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of
compensation amount awarded by Principal District Judge,-cum Presiding
Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Lohardaga in Compensation Case No.
31 of 2013.
2. The appellants are legal heirs of late David Kerketta, who died in a
motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 05 GA
9477. The deceased was a pension holder of Border Security Force, Government
of India. As the death was arising out of motor vehicle accident, the claimants
filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming
compensation. The Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased and
considering the dependency and applying the multiplier, granted compensation
to the tune of Rs. 7,24,104/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment the claimants
approach this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has raised mainly two
issues. His first issue to challenge the quantum is based on the fact that the
Tribunal has deducted the pension which the deceased was receiving from his
employer, while arriving at a conclusion as to what would be the just and fair
compensation. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court the deduction on the monthly pension which a person is receiving is not
proper. The second ground which he has taken is the rate of interest which has
been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per
annum, which according to the claimants should be much more.
He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the appellants are entitled for enhancement on
account of Future Prospects.
4. Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
Company opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that deceased was not
an employee and nor he can be said to be a self-employed person, thus in view
of the aforesaid judgement he is not entitled to get future prospect. He submits
that the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3,75,000/- on conventional head which is not
in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited (Supra). He submits that in terms of the
judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) only Rs. 70,000/-
was supposed to be paid under the aforesaid head. He submits that the quantum
of compensation is just and proper which needs no interference.
5. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that
the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing
Registration No. RJ 05 GA 9477 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
the vehicle was registered with New India Assurance Company Limited. The
fact that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner is also not
disputed. The dependency, the income and the applicability of the multiplier are
also not disputed. Since all these facts are admitted, I am not dealing with the
admitted facts in details in this case, I am only dealing with the controversy
which was raised by the counsel for the appellants. There is no dispute on the
age of the deceased also. So far as future prospects are concerned, I find that it is
an admitted case of the appellants that deceased was a pensioner and was not
working. In view of the aforesaid fact that the deceased was not working and
was receiving only pension this Court feels that he is not entitled to get any
enhancement on account of future prospects as the concept of future prospects is
applicable where the deceased is employed permanently, self employed or
temporary employed. So far as the deceased is concerned he was a pensioner
and his pension is enhanced from time to time by the Central Government and
the said benefit has already passed on, to the family of the deceased. In that view
no future prospect is to be granted in the instant case.
6. The issue which falls for consideration is whether the pension which the
deceased was receiving could have been deducted while computing the amount
of compensation. This issue is no more res-integra. This issue has been decided
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) & Ors.
Vrs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in
(1999) 1 SCC 90 and followed by subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lal Dei and Ors. Vrs. Himachal Road Transport reported
in (2007) 8 SCC 319. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C.
Rebello (Mrs) (Supra) has held that the family pension is earned by an
employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the
service in terms of the service condition receivable by the heirs after his death. It
has been held that heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the
accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore the
family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating
the compensation awarded to the claimants.
7. In the instant case admittedly the amount of family pension has been
deducted while calculating the amount of compensation. This deduction is
against the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts this Court holds that the deduction of
50% of Rs.8313/- is not proper which the appellants' family was getting as
pension, while calculating the compensation.
9. So far as interest is concerned, I find no illegality in granting interest @
6% p.a which needs no interference. Considering what has been held above the
compensation needs to be re-fixed and just and fair compensation has to be
assessed which according to this Court is hereunder:-
Rs. 8313/- x 12 x 14= Rs.13,96,584/-
Rs. 1,396,584/- - 1/4= Rs.10,47,438/-
Rs.1,047,438/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.11,17,438/-
10. As per this Court amount of Rs.11,17,438/- is the just compensation
which the appellants are entitled to get. In this case the Tribunal has awarded
Rs. 7,24,104/- as compensation. The appellants are entitled to get further amount
of Rs.11,17,438/- - Rs.7,24,104/- = Rs.3,93,334/-. Thus the balance amount
comes to Rs. 3,93,334/- which the appellants are entitled to receive.
I direct the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount within a period of
three months from today. This balance amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a from
the date of institution of the case till the payment is made.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
