Jharkhand High Court
Devchand Mahto vs M.S. Chanani Transport on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 127 of 2016
1. Devchand Mahto
2. Yashoda Devi
3. Madhu Kumari
4. Priyanka Kumari
5. Navin Kumar .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. M.s. Chanani Transport, I/C Dayanand Modi, Ramgarh
2. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. , Ramgarh
3. Mehraj Ali .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
FOR THE RESPNDENT NO.1 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
------
8/20.07.2021
In this appeal, the claimants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of
compensation amount awarded by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 35 of 2009.
2. The deceased who happens to be the son of the claimant nos. 1 and 2 and
elder brother of claimant Nos. 3, 4 & 5 met with an accident involving a
Dumper bearing No. BR 13G 0203 and succumbed to the said injuries. The
entire facts are admitted by the parties as such I am not entering in the domain of
the admitted facts. I am confining this order and the findings only in respect to
the issues which are in dispute.
3. The claimants have submitted that the compensation on account of
future prospects has not been granted to them. He further submits that
admittedly the deceased was working as Supervisor and on that ground the
compensation needs to be enhanced by 40% interms of the judgment of the
National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that 50% was deducted on account of
personal expenses, but interms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, since
there were younger siblings of the deceased 1/3rd should have been deducted on
account of personal expenses. He submits that on conventional head Rs.
70,000/- has to be granted.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company submitted that the
amount has correctly been assessed taking the salary of the deceased which was
admitted by the parties. He submits that there is no scope of interference in the
aforesaid award.
The only dispute in this case is that whether the compensation has to be
enhanced after granting the benefit of future prospects of the deceased and
whether the deduction on account of personal expenses should be 1/3rd or half.
5. Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor. Admittedly he has left behind
three minor siblings. Out of them two are the girl child. Considering the
judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) and applying the
same, this Court is of the view that 1/3rd should have been deducted on account
of personal expenses and not half as has been done by the Tribunal. Further I
find that deceased was 19 years admittedly he was working as a Supervisor.
Since he was working, he had future prospects. This concept of future prospects
has not been taken note by the Tribunal. In terms of the judgment of National
Insurance Company Limited (Supra) there should be enhancement of 40% on
account of future prospects. So far as conventional head is concerned I find that
Rs.70,000/- has not been awarded in this case. Thus the appellants are entitled
for an enhancement on that account also. The appellants are entitled to receive
of Rs.70,000/- on account of conventional head. Now if the compensation is
reassessed, the just and fair the compensation would be as follows.
Rs.3000/- x 12x18=Rs.6,48,000/-
Rs.6,48,000/- - 1/3=Rs.4,32,000/-
Rs. 4,32,000/- + 40%= Rs. 6,04,800/-
Rs. 6,04,800/- + 70,000= Rs.6,74,800/- .
The aforesaid amount is just and fair compensation which the claimants
are entitled to receive.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,39,000/-. Thus the claimants are entitled
to balance the amount of Rs. 3,35,800/-.
6. It has been submitted that the entire awarded amount has been paid on
31.12.2015. Therefore I direct the United India Insurance Company to pay the
balance amount Rs. 3,35,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of
settlement of issue i.e 24.5.2014 till the date of payment. It is expected that
balance amount should be paid within a period of three months from today.
7. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
