Jharkhand High Court
Bishu Rabidas vs Meena Devi on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 38 of 2012
1. Bishu Rabidas
2. Smt. Vikhi Devi .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Meena Devi
2. Rabindra Kumar Agarwala
3. Ghunjak Agarwala @ Diwakar Agarwala
4. Smt. Shilpi Agarwala
5. Ghunjak Agarwal @ Dowakar Agarwala
6. National Insurance Company Ltd through its Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office, Dhansar, Dhanbad .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, Advocate
FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
------
10/30.06.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By filing this appeal, the claimants of M.V Claim Case No. 15 of 2002
namely Bishu Rabidas & Smt. Vikhi Devi have prayed for enhancement of compensation
on account of death of their mother namely Sobrati Devi in a motor vehicle accident.
Appellants, in this case, are praying for an enhancement of the
compensation amount on the ground that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the age of
the deceased as 63 years. According to the appellants the age of the deceased was 50
years at the time of accident and the tribunal has wrongly assessed her age. Further the
appellants submit that the tribunal had accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.
2000/- per month but calculated the compensation taking into consideration the income
to be Rs 1000/- per month, thus committed an error. He further submits that lump sum
amount has been awarded without applying the multiplier in this case, which is a grave
illegality. He lastly submits that the amount granted towards funeral expenses and loss
of estate is on the much lower side which has been assessed by the tribunal as Rs.
4500/-. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 had
awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on the aforementioned head. He submits that on these
basis the amount of compensation needs recalculation.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company submits that tribunal
has correctly assessed the compensation and the age of the deceased. He submits that
by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the age of the deceased would be 50
years at the time of accident when his son was aged about 45 years at the time of
accident. He further submits that Rs. 1000/- is the correct income which the court has
assessed.
After hearing the parties, I find that the appellants' mother died in a road
accident involving a pickup Van bearing Registration No. JH 11A 7467. The said
vehicle at the time of accident was insured by National Insurance Company Ltd. It is
the case of the claimants that age of the deceased was 45 years on the date of accident
and the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month. The claimants, Bishu Rabidas stated
his age to be 50 years on the date of examination whereas his sister disclosed her age
as 35 years on the date of examination. The court considered that if the age of the son
is 50 years on the date of examination then on the date of accident his age would be
45 years and if that be so it cannot be said that deceased, who is his mother, was 45
years old at the time of accident as claimed by the claimants. There cannot be a
difference of 5 years in the age of a mother and son .The tribunal thus added 18 years
to the age of son to arrive at the correct age of the deceased. The court thus came to a
finding that the deceased at the time of accident, was aged about 63 years. I find that
no illegality in the manner which the court has calculated the age of the deceased. Even
if two years is deducted and even if it is accepted that deceased had borne a first child
at the age of 16 years, then also the age of the deceased will be more than 60 years and
rather it would be 61 years. Thus this court is of the opinion that the age of the deceased
was somewhere between 61-63 years at the time of accident.
I find from the impugned judgment that court has assessed the monthly income
of the deceased as Rs 2000/-. Be it noted that claimants had claimed monthly income
of the deceased as Rs 2500/-, but there was no proof supporting the same. Thus I hold
that the court assuming the income to be Rs.2000/- is the correct assessment of income
but while calculating the compensation amount of Rs. 1000/- was taken into
consideration by the court, which this court thinks was an error on the part of the
Tribunal. Further I find that no multitier was applied in the instant case though as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited (Supra) the multiplier of seven should have applied in this case
considering the age of the deceased as 61 to 63 years. Further the deduction of 1/3rd on
account of person expenses has been correctly assessed by the Court. Now applying
the aforesaid principle the amount can be calculated as below:-
Rs. 2000/- x 12 x 7= Rs.168000-1/3rd of the amount = Rs.1,12,000/-. Over and
above this amount this court feels that the amount of Rs.50000 should be added on
account of conventional head. The court below only granted Rs.4500/- thus adding
Rs.50,000/- on the aforesaid amount the total amount comes to Rs.1,12,000/-
=Rs.162000/-.
This amount of Rs.162000/- will attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of written statement by opposite no.3 till the date on which the awarded
amount as assessed by the Tribunal, was satisfied.
The amount which had already been paid in compliance of the award passed by
the Tribunal should be deducted by the Insurance Company while paying the balance
amount. The balance amount should be paid within eight weeks from today. It is made
clear that if the balance amount is paid beyond eight weeks, the balance amount will
carry interest @ 6% per annum from today till the actual payment is made.
Accordingly the instant appeal stands disposed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
