Jharkhand High Court
Shilo Saw vs Mohd. Shamshad Ahmad on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 166 of 2016
------
1. Shilo Saw
2. Smt. Taliya Devi ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Mohd. Shamshad Ahmad
2. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited, Ranchi
3. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited, Delhi
... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
03/16.03.2021: This appeal has been filed by the claimant of title M.V. Suit No. 34 of 2012
claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation.
The two appellants are the son and daughter of the deceased. The
deceased is a lady aged about 65 years as per the claimant and as per the court
she is about 75 years. The daughter is married and thus she cannot be said to be
a dependent. So far as the son is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that he
was dependent on the deceased. The deceased, Liliya Devi died on 18.10.2010,
as a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.JH 11F 3171 dashed her
from behind.
It is because of rash and negligence driving of the said motorcycle, the
deceased expired. The fact of the accident is not disputed nor it is disputed that
the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. The Counsel appearing on behalf
of the claimants submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been
assessed. He submits that the deceased was selling milk and thus, it cannot be
said that her earning was Rs. 3,000/- per month. He further submits that
compensation on account of conventional head has not been awarded and only
Rs.10,000/- has been paid as funeral expenses.
Mr. Bibhash Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company
submits that so far as the age of the deceased is concerned, her son in cross
examination has admitted that the deceased was 75 years old. He submits that if
that being so, the correct multiplier has been applied. He further submits that there
is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was earning 10,000/- per month
and in absence of such evidence the tribunal correctly assessed the income to be
Rs. 3,000/- per month but he admit that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid
as funeral expenses which is just improper.
After hearing the counsel for the appellant, I find that factum of accident and
insurance is accepted as admitted. So far the age of the deceased is concerned,
I find from the impugned judgment that her son in his cross examination has
admitted the age of the deceased to be 75 years. Thus a correct multiplier has
been applied in this case. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned,
there is nothing to suggest that she was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Even if it
is accepted that the deceased was earning some amount by selling milk, it can be
said that her earning can come to about Rs. 3,000/- per month because to maintain
a cow for the purpose of selling milk expenses also have to be incurred. Thus the
court below has correctly assessed the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Now
the question is in respect of compensation under the conventional head is
concerned, I find that only Rs. 10,000/- has been paid for loss of consortium and
funeral expenses. This amount is on the much lower side. In the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Shethi and others reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that sum of Rs. 70,000
on the account of loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses should be
granted. Applying the said principle this Court also feels that the amount of Rs.
70,000/- has to be paid under the conventional head. Thus, this Court feels that
the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- on the account of loss of
estate, loss of consortium and expenses for funeral. Thus, I direct the insurance
company to pay a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- within a period of six weeks from
today, failing which, this amount will carry an interest of six per cent per annum
from today till date of payment. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal stands
allowed.
Rajnish/C.P. 3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
