Jharkhand High Court
Parasani Devi vs Jeevan Dang on 17 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 343 of 2013
-----
1. Parasani Devi
2. Budi Devi. .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Jeevan Dang
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ranchi. ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.
For the Insurance Co: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate.
-----
11/17.06.2021: 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 of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. In this appeal, the appellants-claimants have prayed for
enhancement of the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to them
by judgment and award dated 27.7.2011 passed by the learned District Judge-
cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Simdega in M.A.C.C. Case No.
04/2009.
4. There is no dispute in relation to the accident, insurance of the
offending vehicle and the identity of the offending vehicle. There is also no
dispute in respect of monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier.
5. The only points raised by the counsel for the claimants is that the
income on account of future prospect has not been considered by the Tribunal
and also the tribunal has also failed to take into consideration that a some of
Rs.2000/- fixed under the conventional head is much on lower side and is not in
consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Co. Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. These are the only two points, which have been raised by
the claimants.
6. It would be suffice if the amount of compensation is increased taking
into consideration the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co.
Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and future
prospect be awarded to the claimants.
7. This Court puts question before the counsel for the Insurance
Company as to whether any amount in respect of future prospect has been
awarded by the Tribunal or not. Mr. G.C.Jha, counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that amount of future prospect has not been granted in this case and
the concept of future prospect has come after the judgment passed in the Case
of Pranay Sethi and others (Supra). This submission advanced by the counsel
for the Insurance Company has been disputed by the counsel for the appellants
submitting that in earlier judgment also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the concept of future prospect and awarded the same.
8. Admittedly, no future prospect has been considered by the Tribunal
in this case. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get 25% enhancement on
the amount of compensation on account of future prospect. The deceased was
working as a labourer in the Trailer of the Tractor. Thus, the amount of 25% of
Rs.3,60,000/- comes to Rs.90,000/-.
9. Further, I find that only Rs. 2000/- was granted under the head of
conventional head, which is on much lower side. The accident had taken place
on 12.4.2007. Therefore, a amount of Rs.60,000/- should be added under the
conventional head. These two amounts i.e. Rs.90,000/- and Rs.60,000/- [total
Rs.1,50,000/-(one lakh fifty thousand)] will carry 7% interest per annum from the
date of award i.e. 27.7.2011 till the payment is made. It is expected that the
payment should be made to the appellants-claimants within six weeks from
today.
10. With the aforesaid modification of the award dated 27.7.2011 passed
in M.A.C.C. Case No. 04/2009, this appeal stands allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
