Jharkhand High Court
Chanchal Devi & Others vs Nirmal Singh & Another on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 97 of 2020
........
Chanchal Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Nirmal Singh & Another .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate.
........
03/23.06.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma and learned counsel for the National Insurance Company
Limited, Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra.
The claimants namely, Chanchal Devi, wife of Late Binod
Prajapati, Puja Kumari (minor), daughter of Late Binod Prajapati and
Deepak Kumar (minor), son of Late Binod Prajapati, have preferred
this appeal for enhancement of the Award dated 27.01.2020 passed
by learned District Judge-III-cum-M.A.C.T., Chatra in Motor
Accident Claim Case No. 11/2016, whereby the claimants have been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,74,800/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e.
08.02.2016 till payment with certain directions to protect the interest
of the minors.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma
has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the deceased
Binod Prajapati lost his life in an accident on 23.12.2015 from a
truck bearing registration no. NL-01G-5154 belonging to one Nirmal
Singh. The deceased died at the age of 25 years and he was working
as Raj Mistri (Mason) and if there was no documentary evidence
with regard to the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has
wrongly considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per
month.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Apex
Court in the case of Chameli Devi & Others Vs. Jivrail Mian &
Others reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 (SC) has considered such
eventuality, where no documentary evidence has been adduced with
regard to persons, who were working like Carpenter, Raj Mistri etc.
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month
for an accident which took place in the year 2001. So far the present
case is concerned, which took place on 23.12.2015 and keeping the
price index, this Court may enhance the same to the tune of Rs.
7,500/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
interest has been granted @ 6% per annum contrary to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and
Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008
(4) JCR 79 (SC), the same ought to have been @ 7.5 % from the
date of filing of the claim application in view of Section 171 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, as such, necessary correction may be done by
modifying the award.
Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra appearing for National Insurance
Company Limited has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the
entire awarded amount has already been indemnified with interest in
compliance of Award passed by the learned Tribunal and right of
recovery has already been granted by the learned Tribunal in the
impugned award at Page-22 of the award, as such, the same shall
remain intact.
Considering the rival submission of the parties, looking into
facts and circumstances of the case, the income is considered to be
Rs. 6,000/- of the deceased Binod Prajapati, who lost his life at the
age of 25 years while working as a Raj Mistri in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi
(Supra), where the accident took place in the year 2001, whereas in
the instance case, the accident took place in the year 2015.
Since the deceased left behind three dependents, as such
personal deduction shall be 1/3rd in view of the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para-
30). Since the deceased died at the age of 25 years, as such,
multiplier of 18 is applicable in view of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Para-42).
Since the deceased was self-employed and lost his life below
the age of 40 years, as such, future prospect ought to have been
granted @ 40% in view of the judgment National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680 (Para-59.4).
Further claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under
the conventional head i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as loss of State, Rs. 40,000/-
for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses in view
of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi and Ors. (Para-59.8).
So, the new calculation shall be as follows:-
Income Rs. 6,000/- per month
Annual Income Rs. 6,000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/-
40% future prospect Rs. 72,000/- + Rs. 28,800/-
Pranay Sethi (Para- 59.4) = Rs. 1,00,800/-
1/3rd deduction towards personal Rs. 1,00,800/- x 1/3 = Rs. 33,600/-
and living expenses
Sarla Verma (Para-30)
Total Income Rs. 1,00,800/- - Rs. 33,600/-
= Rs. 67,200/-
Multiplier of 18 (as the deceased Rs. 67,200/- x 18 = Rs. 12,09,600/-
was in the age group of 21-25
years) Sarla Verma (Para-42)
Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/-
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8)
Total Compensation Amount Rs. 12,09,600/- + Rs. 70,000/-
= Rs. 12,79,600/-
The aforesaid calculated amount shall be paid to the claimants
with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application i.e. 08.02.2016 in view of judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons (Supra) and Section
171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount already indemnified by
the Insurance Company shall be deducted and balance amount shall
be indemnified within a reasonable time as the incident is of dated
23.12.2015.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
