Jharkhand High Court
Md. Kamrul Haque vs The Manager on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 340 of 2016
1. Md. Kamrul Haque
2. Md. Mujibul @ Md. Mujibul Haque
3. Md. Azimullah @ Azimullah @ Md. Azibullah .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. The Manager, Future Generally India Insurance Company Ltd, Jamshedpur,
East Singhbhum
2. Shri Ram Chaurasiya
3. Shankar Giri .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaisar Alam, Advocate
For the Insurance Company : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
------
07/27.07.2021
In view of paragraph no. 17 of the award, wherein it has been held that
there is no violation of the Insurance policy, this Court feels that there is no
purpose to serve fresh notice to respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are the owner
and the driver of the vehicle.
2. On 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 seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation as awarded to them vide award dated 12.04.2016 passed by
the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gumla in
MAC Case No. 52 of 2014.
5. The case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, which had taken
placeon 13.6.2014, when brother of the claimants, Badrul Haque reached
near village Karondi met with an accident involving Trailer No. NL 01D
7115. It is alleged that the trailer was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, resulting in this accident. The deceased, as per the claim application
was aged about 20 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
6. The owner and driver of the trailer appeared and filed their respective
written statement and denied the factum of accident. They had also taken a
plea that the vehicle was duly insured with Future Generally India Insurance
Company Ltd.
7. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement,
stating therein that until and unless the documents are produced by the
claimants, it will be presumed that the vehicle was being driven without any
valid and proper papers and thus, there is breach of the terms of policy and
the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.
8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,600/- per month
which is on a much lower side and even less than the notional income. He
further submits that on the conventional head, only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has
been awarded, which is not as per 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.
9. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the post-mortem
report of the deceased shows his age as 20 years but his driving licence
shows that on the date of occurrence he was aged about 28 years. He submits
that Tribunal has rightly assessed the age as 28 years which needs no
interference. He submits that so far as income of the deceased is concerned,
there is no material to suggest that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/-
per month, thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and the
same cannot be enhanced.
10. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for
enhancement of compensation. From the submission of the parties, it is clear
that Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
11. On the point of income of the deceased, I find that the claimants have
stated that income of the deceased is Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Tribunal
has assessed the income as Rs. 2,600/- per month. The claimants have not
put forth any evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was earning
Rs. 10,000/- per month. The record shows that deceased was in the business
of tyre resoling. The income of the deceased has been considered in
paragraph no.23 (B) of the judgment. The Tribunal has concluded that the
business was a joint business of four brothers and they were jointly earning
Rs. 400/- to 500/- per day. This is based on the evidence of the claimants.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts I am of the opinion that Tribunal
should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs 4,500/- per month
and not Rs. 2600/- per month. Rs. 2,600/- per month is on a much lower side
which is even less than the notional income. In this case it has not been
disputed that there was tyre resoling business of the deceased and his
brothers.
13. So far as the conventional head is concerned this Court feels that
Rs.30,000/- would be the correct compensation on the aforesaid head and
not Rs.15000/- as granted by the Tribunal.
14. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), 40% future prospect needs to be granted.
13. So far as the other factors are concerned i.e multiplier, age of the
deceased, dependency is concerned I am not interfering with the findings
arrived at by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was unmarried, there would
be deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses. Thus considering
what has been held above, the just and fair compensation would be
calculated as under:-
Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x 17= Rs. 9,18,000/-
Rs. 9,18,000/- (Less) - 50% ( Personal Expenses) =Rs. 4,59,000/-
Rs. 4,59,000 + 40%(Future Prospects) = Rs. 6,42,600/-
Rs. 6,42,600/- + Rs. 30,000/-(Conventional Head) = Rs.6,72,600/-.
15. As per this Court amount of Rs.6,72,600/- is the just compensation
which the appellants are entitled to receive. In this case the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.4,12,800/- as compensation. The appellants are thus entitled to
receive further amount of Rs.2,59,800/-. The balance amount should be paid
within a period of two months. This balance amount will carry interest @
7% p.a from the date of institution of the claim till the payment is made.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
