Nira Devi vs Gagan Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1301 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        M.A. No. 22 of 2015
        1.   Nira Devi
        2.   Fulmanti Devi
        3.   Indradeo Yadav
        4.   Dipak Kumar............                              Appellants
                                        Versus
        1. Gagan Sharma
        2. National Insurance Company Ltd............ Respondents
                                 ......

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:-Video Conferencing ......

        For the Appellants                     : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
        For Respondent No. 2                   : Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate
                                        ......
        I.A. No. 663 of 2015

5/16.03.2021       This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 109 days, occurred in filing this appeal. The grounds to condone the delay have been mentioned in this interlocutory application.

After going through the interlocutory applicatoin, I find that the reasons have sufficiently been explained by the appellants for condoning the delay of 109 days, occurred in filing this appeal. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. The delay of 109 days, occurred in filing this appeal, is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 663 of 2015, stands disposed of.

M.A. No. 22 of 2015 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

In this appeal the claimants-appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has appeared. Since there is no dispute in respect of the accident or the fact that the vehicle was insured and there is no violation of insurance, it is not necessary to issue notice to the owner/driver of the vehicle.

The husband of the claimant/appellant no. 1 died in a road accident on 18.03.2012. The vehicle, which was involved in the accident, was duly insured during the period. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was working as a labourer in a boring/drilling vehicle. It is the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 7500/-P.M. The age of the deceased was 25-26 years. The deceased left behind, his father, mother, wife and a minor child. After recording the evidence the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 6,47,000/- as just and fair compensation.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-claimants have approached this Court by filing this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that so far as general and non-pecuniary benefits are concerned, only Rs. 25,000/- was granted whereas in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Limited - versus- Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680", Rs. 70,000/- should have been granted alongwith 10% increase. He submits that the amount deducted on the ground of dependency so assessed by the Tribunal is 1/3rd, rather it should have been 1/4th. He submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses, who stated that the deceased was getting Rs. 7500/- P.M. he submits that without any basis Rs. 3000/- P.M. was taken to be the amount of monthly salary of the deceased. He submits that all these aspects need to be revisited and recalculated and as a result of which the appellants will be entitled to get more amount as compensation.

Mr. G.C.Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company oppose the prayer and submits that no evidence was led to suggest that the deceased was earning Rs. 7500/-P.M. He submits that since no positive evidence was led nor any document was produced, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- P.M. He further submits that future prospect has been granted @ 50%, which should have been @ 40% as per the judgment of "Pranay Sethi" (Supra).

After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment, I find that the fact that the deceased was working as labourer in a Drilling/Boring vehicle has not been disputed. The only dispute is in respect of quantum of his salary. It is true that there is no documentary proof of the quantum of the salary, which the deceased was earning. Some witnesses orally deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning RS. 7500/- P.M. This oral statement was not backed up by any documents, but the fact also cannot be ignored that a person who was employed in the year 2012, cannot get a salary of only Rs. 3000/- P.M. This Rs. 3000/- is a notional salary. Since the fact that the deceased was employed is not under challenge, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side. This Court is of the opinion that Rs. 4000/- P.M. salary should have been the basis for calculating the compensation. Thus, this Court holds that Rs. 4000/- P.M. should be the salary for calculation of the compensation amount. Considering the aforesaid amount and applying the multiplier of 17, the

compensation amount comes to Rs. 8,16,000/-.

Further, I am of the opinion that since there was a wife, minor child, father and mother left behind by the deceased, the deduction should be 1/4th from the salary and should not 1/3rd. In this context, it must be noted that it is the case of the claimants that the father is also dependent upon the deceased, but this fact has not be specifically denied or there is anything on record to suggest that the father was not dependent upon the deceased. Thus, if 1/4th is deducted from the aforesaid amount, the balance amount will be Rs. 6,12,000/-.

So far as the future prospect is concerned, keeping the age of the deceased, I think that 50% increase should be the criteria for calculating correct future prospect. I am holding this because since 2017 (the year of the judgment of Pranay Sethi), there has been great changes in the rate of daily wages or the rate of wages given to the MANREGA employees etc. Thus, adding 50% on Rs. 6,12,000/- the final amount will come to Rs. 9,18,000/-. Further, Rs. 70,000/- has to be added under the head of general and non-pecuniary benefits, in terms of the judgment of "Pranay Sethi" (Supra). Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 9,88,000/- in all. Thus, as per the opinion of this Court, just and fair compensation in this case would have been Rs. 9,88,000/-.

The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 6,47,000/- as compensation. Thus, as per me the enhanced amount would be to the tune of Rs. 3,41,000/-. Thus, I direct the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,41,000/- to the claimants/appellants within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the amount will carry a simple interest @ 6% P.A. from today till the date of payment.

The judgment and award dated 28.06.2014, passed in Claim Case No. 35 of 2012, by the District Judge-cum-Additional Claim Tribunal-II, Chatra is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent.

This appeal thus stands allowed.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.2