Jharkhand High Court
Kuloda Devi vs Miss. Khushbu Anand on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 401 of 2016
----
1. Kuloda Devi
2. Chanda Devi ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Miss. Khushbu Anand
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor Commercial
House 2 Shastrinagar, Above Ashoka Bajaj Showroom, Dhanbad
826001.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
----
8/ 23.06.2021 Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, 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 is an appeal preferred by the appellant-claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated
03.12.2015 passed by the District Judge-XII-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad in
T(M.V.) S. No.02 of 2012. Be it noted that the Insurance Company has not
challenged the award.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through
the records.
4. Considering the nature of the dispute, it is not necessary to state
in detail about all the facts of this case. Only the facts, which are necessary for
disposal of this appeal, are noted herein.
5. The accident is admitted. Involvement of vehicle is admitted. It is
also admitted that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle, which was insured with Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited. It is also admitted that the deceased died because of the
accident. Age of the deceased and the multiplier applied is also admitted. The
only dispute is with respect to dependency, monthly income of the deceased,
assessment of future prospect and assessment of loss on account of non-
pecuniary damages.
6. The Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased to be
Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month. Counsel for the appellants
submits that the deceased was working as Munshi in Vijay Laxmi Transport,
Sijua, Dhanbad and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Even if Rs.6,000/- per
month is not taken to be the actual amount of earning, then also, as per the
notification of the State of Jharkhand, taking the amount of minimum wages at
the rate of Rs.138/- per day, the income of the deceased for 26 days in a
month would have been Rs.3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred)
per month. The Tribunal should have at least taken into account Rs.3,600/-
(Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred) as monthly income of the deceased.
He further submits that the deceased had left behind younger unmarried sister
and thus, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi & Others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, since, there is younger sister, who is
unmarried, 1/3rd deduction from the income should have been given, but the
Tribunal has deducted half of the amount from the income towards personal
expenses. Further, he submits that no future prospect has been awarded
though as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% enhancement
should have been granted to the claimants. Lastly, he submits that as per the
judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Thousand) should have been given on account of non-pecuniary damages,
but, in the instant case, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only
has been granted.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company vehemently opposes the prayer for enhancement and submits that
the Tribunal has correctly assessed the amount of compensation. He submits
that half of the amount has been correctly deducted towards personal
expenses. On the point of future prospect, he submits that the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra) governs the field.
8. After hearing the parties and on going through the award, I find
that Rs.2,98,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand) has been
assessed by the Tribunal as compensation. As noted above, there is no
dispute about the multiplier. So far as the income of the deceased is
concerned, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand)
as monthly income of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants submits that at
least an amount of Rs.3,600/- per month should have been the income of the
deceased as per the Minimum Wages. I find that the submission of the
counsel for the appellants is justified. The income of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand) per month as taken into account by the Tribunal is much on the
lower side, moreso, when it has been specifically pleaded that the deceased
was working as Munshi in M/s. Vijay Laxmi Transport, Sijua, Dhanbad. Though
the appellants have not produced any salary certificate, but the fact that the
deceased was working as Munshi was not specifically denied before the
Tribunal. If the Insurance Company was having any doubt over the claim of the
claimants, they could have ascertained the actual state through a surveyor of
their own from M/s. Vijay Laxmi Transport, Sijua Dhanbad, which was not
done. Thus, considering the submission of the parties, Rs.3,600/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Six Hundred) should have been taken as monthly income of
the deceased for assessment of the compensation. Considering the aforesaid
monthly income and applying 16 as multiplier, the amount comes to
Rs.6,91,200/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred).
9. It is admitted that the deceased had left behind his mother and
unmarried sister. Since the sister, who is the sibling is unmarried, it was the
duty of the deceased to perform the marriage of his sister. For that this Court
feels that deduction of half the amount towards personal expenses is not
correct approach, rather 1/3rd would be the correct deduction under the head
of personal expenses. Thus, after deducting 1/3rd of the amount from
Rs.6,91,000/-, the amount comes to Rs.4,60,800/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty
Thousand Eight Hundred).
10. Admittedly, no amount towards future prospect has been
computed. In this case, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40%
enhancement has to be granted on account of future prospect. If 40% is added
to Rs.4,60,800/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred), the
amount arrived would be Rs.6,45,120/-.
11. Over and above the aforesaid amount, Rs.70,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand) on account of non-pecuniary damages has to be added.
Adding the same, the final amount comes to Rs.7,15,120/- (Rupees Seven
Lakh Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty). As per this Court, this is the
just and fair amount of compensation, which the claimants were entitled to
receive. This amount of Rs.7,15,120/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifteen Thousand
One Hundred Twenty) will carry an interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
filing of claim application till the date of actual payment. Let it be made clear
that the amount which has already been paid by the Insurance Company to
the claimants should be deducted. After computing the balance amount, the
same should be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant-appellants
within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today.
12. With the aforesaid modification in the award dated 03.12.2015
passed in T(M.V.) S. No.2 of 2012, this appeal stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
