Jharkhand High Court
Basudev Pandit vs Vijay Kumar Modi on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
-----
M.A. No. 643 of 2018
-----
1.Basudev Pandit
2.Mukesh Pandit
3.Nitu Kumari
4.Smt. Sudami Devi
5.Smt. Sewaki Devi
6.Smt. Paro Devi ...... Appellants
Versus
1.Vijay Kumar Modi
2.Jhuna Gupta @ Jhuna Verma
3.The National Insurance Company Limited, Giridih ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent no.3 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
05/Dated: 23/07/2021
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Appellants/claimants have preferred this instant Miscellaneous Appeal for
enhancement of the award dated 14.06.2018 passed by learned District Judge-
III-cum-P.O., M.A.C.T. Act, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No.45 of
2015 on the ground that income of the deceased has been considered on the
lower side and the interest has also been awarded on the lower side.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was
working as a vegetable seller as well as doing cultivating work, as such, her
income may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has drawn
attention of this Court towards the issue nos.III, VII and VIII dealt with at para
13 at internal page no.6 of the impugned judgment/award where the trial court
has recorded that the witness has deposed that he had not seen any saving
account of Bank or post office of the deceased. Thus, it appears that there is no
cogent evidence available on record that deceased was doing cultivation work
and selling vegetable as claimed. Therefore in absence of any document like
receipts of purchasing vegetable, account books, or any authentic evidence of
income no reliance can be placed on oral testimony that deceased was earning
Rs.10,000/- at the time of accident. Therefore, the claimants have failed to
prove that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing cultivation
and selling vegetable. However, even assuming that deceased was not self-
employed by doing cultivation and selling vegetable, the fact remains that she
was a house wife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work
done by a house wife. The services of mother/wife is available 24 hours and
her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognized the contribution made by the
housewife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of
money. A housewife/homemaker does not work by the clock and she is in
constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the
homemaker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of
dependency. The Apex court in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi &
Ors. vs. Kasamdaud Kumbhar & Ors., reported in 2015 (4) SCC 237 has
considered and held that even otherwise taking deceased as the homemaker it is
reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has also considered the future prospect of
the deceased @ 25% in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted that the
interest has been awarded @ 7% per annum though it should be @ 7.5%, but
since compensation granted is just and fair, this Court may not interfere with
the same.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Tribunal was justified in
passing a fair compensation to the deceased, as such, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed.
So far the right to recovery which has been granted by the learned Tribunal
in favour of the Insurance Company after satisfying the award to the claimants,
that remains intact in absence of any appeal preferred by, Vijay Kumar Modi,
owner of offending vehicle bearing registration No.JH11D-4522.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/R.S.-
