Jharkhand High Court
Vina Devi vs Sita Ram Mandal on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 434 of 2015
......
1. Vina Devi
2. Vanshi Devi
3. Kalachand Das
4. Pankaj Das
5. Mishri Das
6. Monika Kumari ...... Appellants
Versus
1. Sita Ram Mandal
2. Nijranjan Mandal
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Godda .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Ms Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
10/Dated: 01/03/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
appellants/claimants namely, 1. Vina Devi, 2. Vanshi Devi, 3. Kalachand
Das, 4. Pankaj Das, 5. Mishri Das and 6. Monika Kumari (claimant nos.3,4
and 5 are minor sons and claimant no.6 is minor daughter of the deceased
represented by their legal guardian and mother- Vina Devi) have
preferred instant Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the award
dated 11.02.2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.
Judge, Godda, in Title (M.V.) Suit No.10 of 2012 whereby the claimants
have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,77,500/- along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
i.e. 10.12.2012 till the date of payment of compensation to be paid with 30
days from the date of award, failing which recovery shall be made
through the process of the Court at the cost of O.P. No.3 i.e. The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased
(Suchindra Das @ Suchindra Harijan @ Sunil Das) lost his life, in a road
accident occurred on 05.12.2011 at about 2:00 P.M. near Jamunia More on
Deoghar-Hansdiha Pitch Road, due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of the tractor bearing Registration No.JH15F-0792, insured before
the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which is not under challenge
before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
enhancement may be allowed on the ground that, though the deceased
was a mason, died at the age of 40 years, but his Future Prospect to the
tune of 40% has not been granted in view of the judgment passed the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4 and recent judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. Etc. vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 decided on 05.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under
the conventional head, learned Tribunal has granted Rs.9,500/- contrary to
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.8,
which ought to have been Rs.70,000/- i.e. for loss of Estate to be Rs.15,000/-,
for loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses to be
Rs.15,000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company while
opposing the prayer has submitted that the vehicle was insured before the
Insurance Company and no appeal has been preferred by the insurance
Company against the impugned Award, but this Court has to determine the
just and fair compensation, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr.,
reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 by deciding at para 8 that where an appeal is filed
challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the
appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and
by applying the relevant principles and determine the just compensation.
Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has further
submitted that multiplier of 16 has been wrongly used contrary to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) &
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 at para 42, which ought to have been 15, as the deceased died at the age
of 40 years.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that
interest has been awarded on the higher side which ought to have been
granted @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization, in view of Section 171 of the MV Act coupled with the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P.
Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4), JCR 79 SC, as such, that part
may be considered and accordingly, the order may be passed.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that as per the
record, it appears that no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
Company against the impugned award and the Insurance Company has not
disputed that offending vehicle was not insured before the Insurance
Company he has further submitted that learned Tribunal has directed the
owner to pay the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act
with right to recovery from the Insurance Company, as such, he has nothing
to say in this matter.
Considering rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that accident has not been disputed
in which the deceased (Suchindra Das @ Suchindra Harijan @ Sunil Das)
lost his life on 05.12.2011 in a motor accident caused by offending vehicle
tractor bearing Registration No.JH15F 0792 insured before the Oriental
Insurance Company Limited. The income of the deceased has also not been
assailed by any of the parties which has been considered by the learned
Tribunal to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month.
Accordingly, this Court also considers the income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/- per month.
As such, the final computation of compensation is 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/- = Rs.1,00,800/-
Pranay Sethi (Supra) para
59.4
1/4th Deduction towards Rs.1,00,800/- minus (Rs.1,00,800/- x 1/4) =
personal and living expenses
Rs.75,600/-
as the dependents are 4-6
Sarla Verma (Supra) para 30
Multiplier of 15 (as the Rs.75,600/- x 15 = Rs.11,34,000/-.
deceased was in the age group
of 36-40 years) Sarla Verma
(Supra) para 42
Conventional Head Rs.70,000/-
Pranay Sethi (Supra) para
59.8
Total Compensation Amount Rs.11,34,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.12,04,000/-
The amount of Rs.12,04,000/- shall be paid by the Insurance
Company along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application till the date of indemnifying the award in view of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal (Supra) and
section 171 of the MV Act. The amount already indemnified by the Insurance
Company under Section 140 of the MV Act and also pursuant to the award
dated 11.12.2015 shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the
balance amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a reasonable
period.
Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
Let the LCR be sent down at once.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/-
