Jharkhand High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Katrina Marandi on 28 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 281 of 2020
-----
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...... Appellant
Versus
1.Katrina Marandi
2.Phransis Hembrom
3.Ajay Kumar Agarwala
4.Ramesh Kumar Singh ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
Through:- Video Conferencing
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate
04/Dated: 28/07/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Appellant- The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the
instant Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 24.06.2020, passed
by learned District Judge-I-cum-M.A.C.T., Dumka, in Motor Accident
Claim Case No.07 of 2019, whereby the claimants namely, 1.Katrina
Marandi and 2.Phransis Hembrom have been awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.61,49,685/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim application up to the date of payment. Further it
was directed that the amount, if any awarded to the claimants under
Section 140 of the MV Act shall be deducted from the above amount.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey has
submitted that, learned Tribunal has committed gross error in not
deducting half of the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor at the
time of accident. Learned Tribunal has wrongly considered that deceased
was unmarried having father, mother and large number of younger non-
earning sister and brothers, as such, deducted 1/4 th, which is contrary to
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)
& others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey has
submitted that accordingly the amount may be deducted to ½ on the
ground of deduction for personal and living expenses in view of the the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) &
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 paras 31 and 32 of which are profitably quoted hereunder:-
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the
deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is
deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of
his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s)
and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents,
because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on
the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother
would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.
However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be
restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
Learned counsel, Mr. Arbind Kumar Lall assisted by learned counsel
for the respondents, Mr. Asadul Haque has opposed the same and
submitted that non-earning brother and sister are also dependent upon
the deceased, as such, learned Tribunal in a benevolent legislation has
rightly taken the stand by deducting 1/4th.
Be as it may, since no evidence has been brought on record by the
claimants that father and mother were non-earning member and it was
deceased, who was sole bread-earner of the family, as such, this Court in
view of the the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 paras 31 and 32, is inclined to deduct
towards the personal and living expenses as half as the deceased was a
bachelor in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the
claimants. Accordingly that part may be reduced by half, so compensation
shall be half of Rs.81,06,246/- i.e. Rs.40,53,123/-. Accordingly, the amount
shall come to Rs.40,53,123/- and that will be paid along with Rs.70,000/-
under the conventional head, as such, the amount comes to Rs.41,23,123/-
which shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application till the date of indemnifying the award.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire amount
has been deposited pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in two
cheques in compliance of order dated 05.03.2021 passed by this Court and
out of which Rs.40 lacs has already been released in favour of the
claimants.
Considering the same, the learned Tribunal is directed to verify and
calculate the interest on the amount, which has been paid to the tune of
Rs.40 lacs and apart from that balance amount with interest is to be
calculated and the same is to be paid to the claimants after due notice and
verification and rest amount, if remains before the learned Tribunal, the
same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company within a period of 30
days from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company
before this Court while preferring the appeal shall be remitted to the
learned Tribunal by the learned Registrar General of this Court within a
period of four weeks so as to disburse the same to the claimants after due
notice and verification and if the amount is found to be excess after
satisfying the award passed by this Court, the same shall be returned to
the Appellant- The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/R.S.
