Jharkhand High Court
Nira Devi & Others vs Gagan Sharma & Another on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 22 of 2015
........
Nira Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Gagan Sharma & 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. G.C. Jha, Advocate.
........
05/09.03.2021.
In compliance of order dated 23.02.2021, an affidavit has been
filed by the Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company
explaining his condition at that time. Accordingly, this Court accept
the affidavit.
So far appearance of respondent no. 1 i.e. Gagan Sharma,
owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, in view of the affidavit
filed by the Administrative Officer that awarded amount passed in
Claim Case No. 35/2012 on 28.06.2014 has already been
indemnified on 12.08.2014. The appearance of respondent no. 1,
owner of the offending vehicle is not necessary, as Insurance
Company has accepted the liability and Insurance Company has not
assailed the impugned award, as such on the joint prayer of the
parties, the appeal be heard on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma
has submitted that the claimants namely, (1) Nira Devi, (2) Fulmati
Devi, (3) Indradeo Yadav and (4) Dipak Kumar, who is minor and
represented through natural guardian mother namely, Nira Devi,
have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award which has
been awarded to the tune of Rs. 6,47,000/- vide award dated
28.06.2014 passed by learned District Judge-cum-Additional Claim
Tribunal-II, Chatra in Claim Case No. 35/2012 on the ground that
deceased Raju Yadav was working in boring vehicle and his income
has been claimed to be Rs. 7,500/-, but the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/-, as such,
income has been wrongly computed.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that under
the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.
35,000/-, which ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- in the view of the
judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 (para-59.8).
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
interest has not been awarded though the learned Tribunal has passed
order that if the award is not paid within a period of one month from
the date of order i.e. 28.06.2014, the claimants are entitled for
interest @ 7% per annum.
Learned counsel for the respondent - National Insurance
Company Limited, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has granted excess amount under the future prospect
contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi and Ors. (para-59.4).
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted
that thought the award was passed on 28.06.2014, but the same has
been indemnified by the Insurance Company on 12.08.2014.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has prayed for an
adjournment so as to verify whether the interest has been paid as
awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 7% in case amount is not paid
within one month from the date of award.
Considering the same, let the appeal be listed in the next week
i.e. on 16.03.2021.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
