Jharkhand High Court
Sahnaj Khatoon vs Bhagwan Ray on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 90 of 2011
1. Sahnaj Khatoon
2. Mosraf Ansari
3. Hazra Khatoo
4. Kamrul Ansari .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Bhagwan Ray
2. Manik Chand Mahto
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, Advocate
FOR THE INSURANCE CO. : Mr. Praytush Kumar, Advocate
------
19/26.07.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the award dated 21.02.2011
in M.V. Claim Case No. 41 of 2004 passed by District Judge-cum-Presiding
Officer, M.V. A.C.T, Giridih whereby the amount of compensation has been
awarded to the tune of Rs. 6,49,500/-. The appellants have challenge the
quantum of compensation and prayed for enhancement.
3. Counsel for the appellants mainly raise the dispute that the monthly
income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed at Rs. 5000/- per month which
infact should be much more as per the salary certificate. He submit that the
deceased Mahmood Ansari was an employee of BCCL, Patherdih Colliery,
Dhanbad and the salary-sheets has been exhibited which suggest that he was
earning much more. He further submits that deduction on account of personal
expenses has been taken 1/3rd which infact should have been 1/4th keeping in view
that the deceased has left behind four dependents. He submit that no compensation
on account of future prospects has been awarded. He further submits that on
account of conventional head Rs. 70,000/- should have been awarded which has
not been given in the instant case.
4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company
by referring to paragraph no. 13 of the award submits that the Tribunal has
considered the pay slips which shows that salary of the deceased was Rs. 7932.48,
Rs.5934.37 and Rs.3734.56 respectively and thus has arrived at a conclusion that
Rs. 5000/- was the salary of the deceased per month.
He submits that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the age of the deceased and
the income which needs no interference. He further submits that there is nothing
on record to show that the deceased was paying income tax, thus 10% should be
deducted from the income.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that only dispute in this appeal is the
quantum. Neither the dependency nor the age is disputed. The fact that the
accident had taken place involving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.
JH 10D 2007 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there was no violation
of the terms and condition of the policy and the vehicle was duly insured with the
National Insurance Company Ltd. nor the multiplier is disputed. That being the
situation, I am dealing with only the points raised by the parties.
6. The first issue which has been raised by the claimants is the salary of the
deceased. According to him the salary cannot be Rs. 5000/- per month. When I go
through the impugned award and the exhibits, I find that on the basis of the
exhibits Tribunal has concluded the monthly wages of the deceased for three
months which comes to Rs.7932.48, Rs. 5934.37 and Rs. 3734.56. If we take
average of these three numbers, the amount which we get is Rs. 5,866/-. For the
purpose of assessing compensation, to round off the aforesaid amount, this Court
feels that Rs. 6000/- would be the correct salary of the deceased per month.
7. So far as deduction on account of personal expenses is concerned, I find
that the deceased left behind four heirs who are wife and minor sons and daughter.
In terms of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) 1/4th
should be deducted on account of personal expenses. The Tribunal in this case has
deducted 1/3rd which cannot be said to be correct. Thus 1/4 th should be the correct
deduction on account of personal expenses.
8. So far as future prospects is concerned, I find that deceased was in the age
group of 31-35, thus 40% compensation should have been added on account of future
prospects. Thus in terms of judgement of National Insurance Company Limited
(Supra) appellants are entitled to receive further enhancement to the tune of 40%.
9. So far as conventional head is concerned, the appellants are entitled to
receive a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. So far as income tax is concerned, I find that there is
nothing on record to suggest that amount of 10% has been deducted from the amount
which the deceased was receiving.
10. Now if we calculate the amount of compensation afresh, the calculation will
be as follows:-
Rs. 6000/- x 12 x16 = Rs. 11,52,000/-
Rs. 11,52,000/- - 1/4th= Rs. 8,64,000/-
Rs. 8,64,000/- + 40%= Rs. 12,09,600/-
Rs. 12,09,600/- +Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 12,79,600/-
8. According to this Court, just and fair compensation would be Rs. 12,79,600/-
. The appellants have already received Rs. 6,49,500/- thus the appellants are entitled
to get further amount of Rs. 6, 30,100/-. Thus the balance amount of Rs. 6, 30,100/-
should be paid to the appellants within a period of two months. The said balance
amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the award till the date of actual
payment.
9. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
