Jharkhand High Court
Suman Chirania & Anr vs M/S Grand Logistics & Ors on 28 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 213 of 2019
.........
Suman Chirania & Anr. ..... Appellants
Versus
M/S Grand Logistics & Ors. ........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellants : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
..........
04/Dated: 28/07/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The appellants/claimants, namely, Suman Chirania and Kusum
Jalan have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the judgment/award
dated 10.09.2018, passed by learned District Judge-I, Jamshedpur, in MAC
Case No.196 of 2016, whereby the claimants namely, 1. Suman Chirania,
2.Sakshi Jalan, 3.Kushi Jalan, 4.Kusum Jalan and 5.Ritik Jasan have been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.51,60,566/- along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Amaresh Kumar has assailed
the impugned award for enhancement on the ground that though the
income tax return for the financial year, 2014-15 showing income of
Rs.3,72,935/-, for financial year, 2015-16 showing income of Rs.7,49,080/-
and for financial year, 2016-17 showing income of Rs.8,97,600/-, which
have been brought on record as Exhibit-5 to Exhibit-5/20.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that income tax
return for the financial year, 2015-16 has been filed on 28.03.2016 i.e.
before the death of Anand Jalen @ Jalan on 27.04.2016, but in the evidence
of A.W.-2 (Vishnu Garg), an advocate practicing in income tax has stated
that Anand Jalen @ Jalan has died on 27.04.2016 and after death the legal
heirs (Son) of Anand Jalen @ Jalan have filed the said income tax return for
the financial year, 2015-16, as such, the learned Tribunal has committed
error in not considering the documentary evidence rather on the basis of
the oral testimony of A.W.2 (Vishnu Garg), confusion has cropped up in
the mind of learned Tribunal, as such, less amount has been considered as
income of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
deceased- Anand Jalen @ Jalan was a business man and died at the age of
36 years, as such, the multiplier ought to have been 15, which has wrongly
been considered by the learned Tribunal as 13 without giving any specific
reason.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
interest has been awarded @ 6% per annum which ought to have been @
7.5% per annum, in view of the consistent stand taken by this Court in
view of Section 171 of the MV Act and by following the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208.
Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that amount
of compensation may be enhanced by this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is
delay of 131 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same,
I.A. No. 5365 of 2019 has been preferred.
Considering it to be a benevolent legislation and the reason has been
assigned for condonation of delay in the Interlocutory Application, delay of
131 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A. No. 5365 of 2019 stands allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Alok Lal has objected
the same and submitted that as per the submission of learned counsel for
the appellants, since there is error of record, as such, the LCR may be
called for so as to verify the documents, which are Exhibit-5 to Exhibit-
5/20 and the evidence of A.W.2 (Vishnu Garg).
Learned counsel for the respondent/owner, Mr. Manish Kumar has
submitted that there is no dispute that the vehicle was duly insured before
the Insurance Company and there is no violation of terms and conditions
of the Insurance Policy, as such, he has nothing to say on the merits of the
appeal.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the LCR be called
for from the court of learned District Judge-I, Jamshedpur in connection
with MAC Case No.196 of 2016.
Put up this case soon after receipt of the LCR.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Tribunal
through FAX at once.
In the meantime, parties are directed to exchange their pleadings
and documents.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
