Jharkhand High Court
Jainul Ansari vs Sri Mahesh Sahu on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.37 of 2017
WITH
I.A. No. 11416 of 2019
----
1. Jainul Ansari
2. Khairun Nisa ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Sri Mahesh Sahu
2. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Issuing Office, 38-B,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, 8th Floor, Kolkata West Bengal 700071),
through its local Office at J.D. Corporate, 1st Floor, Unit No.3, Jogiram
Durga Dutta Lane, Main Road, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
----
7/ 23.06.2021 I.A. No. 11416 of 2019
Through this interlocutory application, the appellants have prayed
to condone the delay of 54 days in preferring this appeal.
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants, for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
Considering the statements made in the interlocutory application
and satisfied with the reasons shown, I am inclined to allow this interlocutory
application. The delay of 54 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
This interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed.
M.A. No. 37 of 2017
Heard Mr. Mohammad Asghar, 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. Both the parties are agreeable for disposal of this appeal at this
stage.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation amount, which has been awarded vide
judgment and award dated 18.08.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case No.03 of 2010.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the impugned award
and judgment, I find that the factum of accident and dependency has not been
disputed. It is also not disputed that the accident had occurred because of rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle, which was insured with the Reliance
General Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the son of the
claimants expired because of the said accident. The fact that the son of the
claimants was cleaner in a dumper is also not denied. The deceased was
aged about 21 years.
5. Counsel for the claimant-appellants submits that though the
monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.3,000/- as claimed
by the claimants, but Rs.75/- which was paid as fooding expenses to the
deceased has not been considered. It has been further submitted that
multiplier 16 has been applied, whereas it should have been 18. It has also
been argued that the Tribunal has not considered future prospect while
granting compensation and account of general and non-pecuniary damages of
Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand), as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay
Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has also not been granted. He
submits that the claimants are also entitled to get the said benefit.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company submits that the claimants are not entitled to
get benefit of amount, which was given to the deceased on account of fooding
charges. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly applied 16 as
multiplier and deducted half of the amount on account of dependency.
7. After going through the award, I find that it is the case of the
claimants that their son was getting Rs.75/- per day as fooding expenses.
Though the entire amount of Rs.75/- cannot be accepted as income, but, this
Court feels that at least the deceased would have saved some amount from
the said grant. Further, the salary has been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month
as claimed by the claimants. Taking over all situation, I find that for computing
the compensation, income of Rs.3,200/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two
Hundred) per month would be the correct amount, which can be taken into
account for assessing the compensation. So far as multiplier is concerned, the
multiplier 16 has been applied by the Tribunal, whereas considering the age of
the deceased, correct multiplier would be 18. So far as dependency is
concerned, Tribunal has correctly deducted half of the amount as the
claimants are parents and the deceased died unmarried.
8. In this case, I find that future prospect has not been granted as
per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra). If a deceased is self-employed and
below 40 years of age, 40% enhancement should be granted on account of
future prospect. In this case also, the claimants are entitled for enhancement
of 40% on account of future prospect. Further, I find that on the head of funeral
expenses and loss of State, Rs.35,000/- has been awarded. As per the
judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.70,000/- should be granted.
9. Now, calculating the entire compensation on the basis of what has
been held above, the amount comes to Rs.5,53,840/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty
Three Thousand Eight Hundred Forty). According to this Court, this amount is
fair and correct compensation, which the claimants are entitled to receive. This
amount of compensation will also attract interest at the rate of 6% from the
date of framing of issues as held by the Tribunal. Thus, I direct the Insurance
Company to pay the balance amount, after recalculating the same and after
deducting the amount, which has already been paid by the Insurance
Company to the Claimants, within a period of two months from today.
10. With the aforesaid modification in the award dated 18.08.2016
passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.03 of 2010, this appeal is allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
