Jharkhand High Court
Murlidhar Singh vs Sri Rajendra Behl on 21 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 244 of 2015
----
1. Murlidhar Singh
2. Smt. Joba Devi @ Jeva Devi ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Sri Rajendra Behl
2. Sri Mukesh Kr. Agrawal
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi Branch Office III, Dangra Toli
Chowk, Purulia Road, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
----
8/ 21.06.2021 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Insurance Company through Video Conferencing. 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 complain in respect to the
audio and video clarity and quality.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants for
enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.282 of 2004.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through
the records. From the arguments of the parties, the factum of accident is
admitted and so is the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental
Insurance Company Limited. The age of the deceased is also admitted to be
22-25 years. It is also admitted that the deceased left behind his parents, who
are the claimants and the deceased was unmarried.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants, submits
that a notional income of Rs.3000/- per month was taken by the tribunal to
assess the compensation amount. He submits that the notional income should
have been Rs.6,000/- per month. He further submits that future prospect has
been computed at the rate of 50%. He submits that on the conventional head,
only Rs.1.25 lakh has been granted. He further submits that the age of the
claimants has been considered while fixing the multiplier, which is erroneous.
Deceased was aged about 22-25 years and as per the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited versus Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
multiplier of 18 would have been the correct multiplier. He further submits that
interest has been given from the date of award and not from the date of filing
of claim application. He submits that on the aforesaid basis the amount of
compensation needs to be enhanced.
5. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Insurance Company submits that admittedly, the petitioner was unemployed.
He submits that a plea has been taken that the petitioner was a student and
had several degrees, but, surprisingly, none of the said degrees or documents
are on record, which is apparent from paragraph 7 of the impugned award. He
further submits that the petitioner being an unemployed, could not have been
granted any future prospect, but, the Tribunal has granted 50% future
prospect, which is also against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He submits that the amount of
Rs.1.25 lakh under the conventional head is absolutely against the judgment,
which has been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) where only Rs.70,000/- has been granted under the said head.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal
has assessed Rs.4,76,000/- to be correct compensation. While assessing the
aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has given an enhancement of 50% on account
of future prospect. This amount of 50% is not in accordance with the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Further, a sum of Rs.1.25 lakh has been granted under the conventional head,
which is also not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), but the fact remains that
the impugned award has not been challenged by the Insurance Company.
7. Now, this Court has undertaken a process to find as to what would
be the just and fair compensation. In this case, multiplier has been taken by
the Tribunal as 13 taking consideration the age of the claimants, but, as per
the opinion of this Court, multiplier should be 18 taking into consideration the
age of the deceased. So far as the notional income is concerned, admittedly,
the deceased was unemployed and had no independent source of income.
Even the educational certificates have not been produced before the Tribunal,
which is apparent from paragraphs 7 and 17 of the impugned award. This
Court feels that Rs.3,000/- as notional income, whose accident had taken
place in 2004 cannot be interfered with. Thus, applying the multiplier of 18 and
taking into account dependency of 50%, the amount comes to Rs.3,24,000/-.
Over and above the aforesaid amount, if this Court grants 40% as future
prospect, total amount comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. Over and above the amount of
Rs.4,53,600/-, if the amount of Rs.70,000/- is added under the conventional
head, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.5,23,600/-.
8. The tribunal has assessed Rs.4,76,000/- as compensation and as
per this Court, the amount of Rs.5,23,600/- would be the just and fair
compensation. Since the amount of compensation, which has been derived by
this Court is more than the amount which has been assessed by the Tribunal, I
consider that the amount derived by this Court should be just and fair
compensation. This Court holds that Rs.5,23,600/- would be just and fair
compensation, which the claimants should get.
9. Further, reasons for not granting interest from the date of filing of
application has been well explained in the impugned award. The Tribunal at
paragraph 21, on the basis of the records has held that the case was admitted
on 20.08.2009, but, steps for notice against opposite party No.1 was taken
belatedly. Evidence of claimant witnesses began from 28.01.2013 and
concluded on 10.03.2015 despite the fact that issues were framed on
28.11.2011, thus, the delay has been attributed by the tribunal to be on the
part of the claimants. The judgment was delivered on 18.03.2015. Thus, I find
that the entire delay is on the part of the claimants and the Tribunal was well
within its jurisdiction to deny interest from the date of filing of claim application.
Thus, on the point of interest, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in
favour of the claimants.
10. In view of what has been held and observed, the just and fair
compensation which the claimants are entitled to receive is Rs.5,23,600/-. I
direct the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of compensation
along with 7% interest from the date of award till the date of actual payment.
11. With the aforesaid findings, this appeal stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
