Jharkhand High Court
Nisha Devi vs Tajmul Hussain on 16 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 486 of 2014
1. Nisha Devi
2. Karan Kumar Singh
3. Gayatri Devi..................... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Tajmul Hussain
2. Arif Khan
3. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance
Company Ltd., Daltonganj............ Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:- Video Conferencing
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
......
9/16.06.2021 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding,
which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They
have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
insurance company and the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle,
on whose negligence, the accident had taken place.
This is an appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj has awarded
a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,93,500/- alongwith 6% interest to the
claimants, who happen to be the wife, son and mother of the deceased.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits
that the Tribunal without any cogent reason has assessed the income of
the deceased at Rs. 3000/- P.M. He further submits that while awarding
compensation future prospect has not been taken note of. He further
submits that under the head of general and non-pecuniary damage a very
less amount of Rs. 9500/- has been granted, which is not in accordance
with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"National Insurance Company Limited - versus- Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680".
Mr. G.C.Jha, learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the
deceased was running a grocery shop. He submits that at least an electric
bill should have been produced by the claimants in support of their claim.
He further submits that in absence of cogent evidence, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- P.M. so far as
non-pecuniary damage is concerned, Mr. Jha submits that the judgment
of "Pranay Sethi" (supra) was delivered in the year 2017, which has granted
Rs. 70,000/- on account of non-pecuniary damage. He further submits
that taking into consideration that the instant accident has taken place in
the year 2009, the demand of Rs. 70,000/- in terms of the aforesaid
judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not justified.
Mr. Jitendra S Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
owner of the offending vehicle submits that his vehicle was duly insured
and it is the insurance company who has to pay the compensation amount
as the same has been held by the Tribunal. He submits that he has got
nothing to say if the compensation amount is enhanced.
After hearing the parties, I have gone through the record. From
the record and from the arguments, I find that it is an admitted fact that a
motor accident had taken place where Kamlesh Kumar Singh died
sustaining injuries. The offending vehicle is a tractor bearing registration
No. JH01Z- 1494, which was insured by the New India Assurance
Company Limited.
Admitted fact is that the insurance was valid. It is also admitted
that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligence driving
of the aforesaid offending vehicle. Dependency is also admitted.
Thus, the only question which needs to be considered in this
appeal is as to what would be the just and fair compensation. The
claimants claim that the deceased was running a grocery shop. This fact
was not specifically denied by the insurance company. The Tribunal
disputed the aforesaid fact and held that there was no document to
suggest that the deceased was running a grocery shop. Be it noted that the
claimants have categorically stated that the grocery shop was run by the
deceased in the name and style of Swastik General Store, which is situated
at Indrapuri Road No. 2, Ratu Road, Ranchi. The details of the grocery
shop have been given. If the insurance company have any doubt about the
aforesaid statement and the existence of the said grocery shop in the name
and style of Swastik General Store, which belongs to the deceased, they
could have easily inquired and denied the existence of the same, but the
same was not done. Considering the aforesaid fact, I find that the Tribunal
has erred by holding and doubting about the existence of the said grocery
shop.
Now the question is as to what would be the income of the
deceased. Though there is no chit of paper in support of the claim of
income of the deceased, but it is also a fact that it cannot be said that the
deceased was earning merely Rs. 100 per day by running a grocery shop.
The claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- P.M. from
the aforesaid grocery shop. Thus, this Court feels that Rs. 5000/- P.M. can
be said to be a reasonable amount, which a person could have been
earning from the aforesaid grocery shop. It is also to be noted that the
deceased was taking care of his mother, wife and a minor son. Thus, it
cannot be said that he was not earning at least the aforesaid amount.
Thus, I hold that Rs. 5000 can be taken to be the monthly income of the
deceased.
In this case, the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of
16 and deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenses. Thus, applying
the formula the annual dependency comes to Rs. 5000 X 12 X 16- 1/3 rd
= Rs 6,40,000/-.
The deceased was aged about 31 years. Thus, he is entitled for
enhancement of 40% on account of future prospect on the aforesaid
amount. Adding 40% on the aforesaid amount, the total amount will be
Rs. 8,96,000/-. Further, I find that on account of non-pecuniary damage
only a sum of Rs. 9500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. As per the
judgment of the 'Pranay Sethi' (supra) the amount comes to Rs. 70,000/-.
But, one thing is to be noted that the aforesaid judgment of 'Pranay Sethi'
(supra) has been delivered in the year 2017, whereas in the instant case
the death has taken place in the year 2009. Thus, in my opinion, a lump
sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- would be just and proper on account of non-
pecuniary damage. Thus, after adding Rs. 30000/- on the aforesaid
amount of compensation, the total amount of compensation comes to the
tune of Rs. 9,26,000/-. Thus, the just and proper compensation as per the
opinion of this Court, is Rs. 9,26,000/-. An amount of Rs. 3,93,500/-,
which was assessed by the Tribunal, has already been paid by the
insurance company to the claimants. Now, the balance amount of Rs.
5,32,500/- will have to be paid by the insurance company. This balance
amount will also carry an interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of
award. Thus, I direct the insurance company to pay the balance amount of
Rs. 5,32,500/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date
of award to the claimants within a period of two months from today.
Thus, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp. 2
