Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Devi vs Paramjit Singh Bhandari on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 113 of 2016
-----
1. Sunita Devi
2. Ramadhar Singh
3. Raja Devi
4. Sindhu Kumari
5. Robin Kumar
6. Gulsan Kumar .... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. Paramjit Singh Bhandari
2. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bankmore, Dhanbad.
... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Rajeev Karan, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): M/s Ganesh C. Jha and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates.
-----
08/27.7.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which
has been held through video conferencing today at 10:30 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, who are widow, two minor children and
parents of the deceased, have prayed for enhancement of the amount of
compensation, which has been awarded to them by judgment and award dated
20th December, 2014 passed by the District Judge -cum- M.A.C.T. Judge-VII,
Dhanbad, in Title (MV) Suit No. 62/2015.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that on wrong basis, the amount of
compensation has been calculated. He submits that the the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased Rs.3000/- per month without any basis,
but the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, as he was
employee working as Security Guard in Delhi and his employer was G.I. Security,
New Delhi. He further submits that the oral evidences have fully supported that
the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He further submits that the
claimants have proved their case but the Tribunal has not at all considered the
future prospect of the deceased.
6. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident had
taken place on 26.6.2004 and the amount of Rs.6,11,700/- along with interest
@9% p.a has been awarded, which is just and fair compensation. He further
submits that after taking into consideration the evidences, the tribunal has
arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month at
the time of accident.
7. After hearing the parties and after going through the award, I find
that on 26.6.2004 the deceased was dashed by a truck bearing Registration No.
HR 38E 0208 while the driver of the said truck was taking it back near Soil
dumping yard at Shastri Park (Metro) New Delhi in a rash and negligent manner,
as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injures and he died in course
of treatment in hospital. The deceased was working as a security Guard under
G.I. Security, New Delhi.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues,
which are as follows:-
(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(II) Whether there is any valid cause of action for the present suit?
(III) Whether the driver of the truck No. HR-38E-0208 was driving the
said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner?
(IV) Whether the offending truck driver was holding a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of alleged occurrence?
(V)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation and from whom?
(VI) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs
under the law?
9. The claimant examined five witnesses. Several documents were
exhibited on behalf of the claimants- appellants. The Insurance Company did not
produce any oral and documentary evidence and thereafter, the Tribunal, taking
into consideration the facts and evidences of the case, found that the claimants
are entitled to receive the compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The
Tribunal considered the claim of the appellants and awarded a sum of
Rs.6,11,700/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing till the date of
its realization.
10. After hearing the parties and after going through the evidences, I find
that there are some oral evidences of some witnesses that the deceased was
earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Insurance Company has also not led any
evidence to prove the contrary. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed the income of
the deceased on notional basis, as per the prevailing minimum wages at the
relevant point of time. This Court is of the opinion that in the year 2004 (at the
time of accident) a person employed at Delhi would not earn less than Rs.6000/-
per month by working as Security Guard and thus Rs.6000/- per month of the
income of the deceased should have been considered by the Tribunal. This
Court further feels that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income
towards personal expenses and has taken the multiplier 17, as per the age of the
deceased, which is not in dispute.
11. The next contention is in respect of future prospect. 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, the claimants are entitled to get 40% enhancement on account of
future prospect. So far as compensation on account of conventional head is
concerned, the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 70,000/- in terms of the said
judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
12. Considering the aforesaid facts, the calculation will read as follows:-
Rs. 6000 X 12 X 17(multiplier) = Rs.12,24,000/-
Rs.12,24,000/- less 1/4th (personal expenses)= Rs. 9,18,000/-
Rs.9,18,000/- +40% (future Prospect)= Rs. 12,85,200/-
Rs.12,85,200+ 70,000/- (conventional head)= Rs.13,55,200/-
13. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.13,55,200/- (thirteen lakh fifty
five thousand two hundred only). Thus, I direct the Insurance Company to pay
the balance amount to the claimants-appellants within two months from today,
failing which, the same bears interest @ 7% p.a from today till the actual date of
payment.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands
disposed of.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
