Jharkhand High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Mrs. Geeta Singh on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
M.A. No. 436 of 2014
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Mrs. Geeta Singh
2.Master Deepak Kumar Singh
3.Mrs. Sheela Singh
4.Saroj Devi
5.Ramlakhan Singh .. ... ... Respondent(s)
With
M.A. No.219 of 2015
1.Mrs. Geeta Singh
2.Master Deepak Kumar Singh
3.Mrs. Sheela Singh .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Saroj Devi
2.Ramlakhan Singh
3.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi.
.. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate [M.A. No. 436 of 2014]
Mr. Y. N. Mishra, Advocate [M.A. No.219 of 2015]
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Y. N. Mishra, Advocate [M.A. No. 436 of 2014]
Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate [M.A. No.219 of 2015]
..........
09 / 09.03.2021. I.A. No.2854 of 2015 (in M.A. No.219 of 2015)
Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that
claimants have preferred (M.A. No.219 of 2015) for enhancement of the
Award, but there is delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal and for
condonation of the same, I.A. No.2854 of 2015 has been filed.
So far delay in preferring the Misc. Appeal for enhancement of the
award is concerned, this Court considering it to be a benevolent legislation is
inclined to allow the same, but with condition that the period i.e. from the
date of award till the date of issuance of notice by this Court in M.A. No.219
of 2015 i.e. 16.08.2018, the claimants shall not get any interest on enhanced
amount as the insurance company has paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs) disbursed in favour of the claimants in compliance of the order
dated 04.10.2017 passed in I.A. No.7238 of 2017 (passed in M.A. No.436 of
2014).
Considering the same, delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal is
hereby condoned, but with the condition that interest will be granted from
the date of filing of the claim application till the date of award. Thereafter
from the date i.e. 16.08.2018 till the date of indemnifying the enhanced
award, if any.
I.A. No.2854 of 2015 stands disposed of.
M.A. No.436 of 2014 and M.A. No.219 of 2015
Since both the aforesaid Misc. Appeals are arising out of a common
impugned judgment/award, as such, both are being heard together and
disposed of, by this common judgment.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
M.A. No.436 of 2014 has been filed by the appellant- The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment/award dated 08.08.2014
passed by learned District Judge-III cum MACT, Jamshedpur, in
Compensation Case No.145 of 2010, whereby, the claimants, 1.Mrs. Geeta
Singh, 2.Master Deepak Kumar Singh and 3.Mrs. Sheela Singh have been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,68,000/- along with interest @9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of
payment within 30 days and the amount, if any, paid as ad-interim
compensation under Section 140 M.V. Act shall be deducted from the entire
amount.
M.A. No.219 of 2015 has been filed by the claimants, 1.Mrs. Geeta
Singh, 2.Master Deepak Kumar Singh and 3.Mrs. Sheela Singh for
enhancement of the award dated 08.08.2014 passed by learned District
Judge-III cum MACT, Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No.145 of 2010.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha
has assailed the impugned award on two counts; (1)that excess amount has
been paid by the learned Tribunal by considering the income of the deceased
to be Rs.6900/- per month and; (2) that the interest has also been paid on the
higher side @ 9% contrary to 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.
Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not considered the Future Prospect of the deceased, in view of
the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, at para 59.4,
as the deceased died at the age of 36 years approximately, as such, the
claimants are entitled for Future prospect @40%.
Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that
under the conventional head, amount of Rs.40,000/- has only been
granted instead of Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgment passed by Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at Para 59.8 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 claimants has thus, submitted that amount of
compensation may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. G. C. Jha
in support of his submission has placed the impugned judgment where the
conduct of the claimants has been shown before this Court that without
having any income certificate, a PAN card has been produced by the
claimants and that does not stand in the name of the deceased, rather the
same stands in the name of his brother, Prabhash Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. G. C. Jha
in support of his submission has placed the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr.,
reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 at para 8 which may profitably be quoted
hereunder:-
"8. 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, determine the just compensation. If
the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss
the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined
by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow
any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously
increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the
compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation."
As such, this Court may consider just and fair compensation.
Now the Court considers the case on merits. The admitted facts of the
case is that deceased (Prakash Kumar Singh) died in an accident on
26.10.2009 while he was going on Maruti Van bearing Registration
No.BR16M 4659 which has been dashed by Truck bearing Registration
No.CG04ZC 3794 insured before the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company
Limited. Deceased (Prakash Kumar Singh) died on 26.10.2009 at the age of
about 35 years as his date of birth is 14.04.1974. Deceased was admittedly a
businessman running a motor parts shop, but no document has been
brought on record in support of the same. The learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,900/- per month in absence
of any documentary evidence.
Much has been harped upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company with regard to consideration of monthly income, but this Court in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi
vs. Jivrail Mian, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, considers income of the
deceased as Rs.6,900/- per month as reasonable income of the deceased, who
was a businessman. The Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) , the
deceased was a Carpenter, who lost his life in the year 2002, has considered
the income to be Rs.5,000/- per month in absence of any documentary
evidence. Admittedly, the deceased (Prakash Kumar Singh) was a
businessman, as such, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned
Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased.
This Court also considers the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,900/-
per month.
As such, the final computation of compensation is as follows:-
Income Rs.6,900/- per month
Annual Income Rs.6,900/- x 12 = Rs.82,800 /-
40% Future Prospect Rs.82,800 /- + Rs.33,120/- =
Pranay Sethi (Supra) para 59.4
Rs.1,15,920/-
1/3rd Deduction towards personal and Rs.1,15,920/- minus (Rs.1,15,920/- x
living expenses as the dependents are
1/3) = Rs.77,280/-
3 Sarla Verma (Supra) para 30
Multiplier of 15 (as the deceased was Rs.77,280/- x 15 = Rs.11,59,200/-
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.11,59,200/- + Rs.70,000/- =
Rs.12,29,200/-
The total compensation of Rs.12,29,200/- shall be paid with interest
@7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of award.
Thereafter interest shall be payable from the date i.e. 16.08.2018 till the date
of indemnifying the enhanced award. However, the amount already paid by
the Insurance Company including amount of Rs.50,000/- as ad-interim
compensation shall be deducted from the total compensation amount and
the balance amount shall be paid within a reasonable time by the Insurance
Company as the date of accident is 26.10.2009.
Accordingly, both the Miscellaneous Appeals stand disposed of.
The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this
Court while preferring the appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal
by the learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks
from today and the balance amount shall be paid within a reasonable period,
as the accident is of the year 2009.
The amount of compensation shall be apportioned between the
claimants in accordance with law.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
