The New India Assurance Company ... vs Pancham Devi & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2590 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                 M.A. No. 80 of 2019
                          ........

The New India Assurance Company Limited .... ..... Appellant Versus Pancham Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Appellant                 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents               :
                                  ........
03/28.07.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manish Kumar. The New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal against the award dated 01.10.2018, passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-M.A.C.Tribunal, Palamau at Daltanganj, in M.A.C. Case No. 30/2016, whereby claimants namely, (1) Pancham Devi (2) Rani Kumari (3) Dipak Kumar Singh (4) Jyoti Kumari and (5) Yashvant Singh (claimant nos. 2 to 5 are minors and represented through their natural guardian i.e. mother namely, Pancham Devi) have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,50,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- has already been paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, Rs.13,00,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 30.11.2016 till the date of indemnifying the award.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by considering the income of the deceased, who was a Mason and lost his life on 03.02.2016 to be Rs.10,000/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence, though the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi Vs. Jivrail Mian reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, has considered the income of a carpenter, who has no documentary evidence regarding income, who lost his life in motor accident on 02.01.2001 to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month, as such, notice may be issued to the claimants.

This Court in absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639. Para-8 of which is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court considered the entire material that deceased, Amlesh Singh lost his life in a motor vehicle accident caused by Bolero DI Jeep bearing registration No.JH-03H-7457 on 03.02.2016 at 7.15 P.M., which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and dashed the deceased causing his death at the spot at the age of 35 years. The vehicle was duly insured before the appellant

-Insurance Company vide Policy No.54110431140100002040 valid for the period from 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016, which covers the period of date of accident on 03.02.2016.

It appears that deceased left behind five dependents, but the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd under the heading personal and living expenses of the deceased, which ought to have been 1/4 th in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. (Para-30).

It appears from the record that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered by the learned Tribunal in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (paragraph-59.4), as the same ought to have been granted @ 40%.

Apart from that the interest has been awarded on the lower side @ 6% per annum, which ought to have been 7.5% per annum in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC) and read with under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Considering the same, this Court is computing the compensation afresh as no appeal has been preferred by the claimants. The income has been claimed by the claimants to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month, though the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- while deciding issue No.IV, as deceased was a mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- from the work of the petty contractor of building construction, but, no documentary evidence has been brought on record. In the year 2015-16, the Government of Jharkhand has notified the minimum wages of skilled labourer as Rs.283 per day, as such, the monthly income comes to Rs.283 x 26 = Rs.7,358/- per month (26 working days and 4 Sunday).

Accordingly, this Court is computing the compensation afresh:-

      Income                             Rs.7,358 /- per month
      Annual Income                      Rs. 7,358 /- x 12 = Rs. 88,296/-
      40% future prospect                Rs. 88,296/- + Rs. 35,318/-
      Pranay Sethi (Supra)(Para-59.4)    = Rs. 1,23,614/-

1/4th deduction towards personal Rs. 1,23,614/- x 1/4 = Rs. 30,903/- and living expenses Sarla Verma (Supra)(Para-30) Total Income Rs. 1,23,614/- - Rs. 30,903/- = Rs.

92,711/-

Multiplier of 16 (as the deceased Rs. 92,711/- x 16 = Rs. 14,83,376/- was in the age group of 31-35 years) Sarla Verma (Supra) (Para-42) Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as loss of Pranay Sethi (Supra)(Para-59.8) estate, Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses.

Total Compensation Amount Rs. 14,83,376/- + Rs. 70,000/-

= Rs. 15,53,376/-

In view of calculation above, it appears that amount will enhance, but no appeal has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of compensation, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court, in absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of

award, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company for deduction or reduction in the compensation amount is fit to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. I.A. No.1740/2019 for condonation of delay and I.A. No.1921/2021 for stay of further proceeding are hereby closed.

The statutory amount deposited by appellant at the time of preferring the appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal by the learned Registrar General within a period of four weeks, so as to satisfy the part of award to the claimants and balance amount shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company to the claimants within a reasonable period as the accident is of dated 16.03.2016, where the deceased left behind his wife and four minor children.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil-Jay/-