Amna Khatoon vs Sunil Kumar Bajpai
2021 Latest Caselaw 1314 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   M.A. No. 101 of 2011
                                             -----

1. Amna Khatoon

2. Md. Samim

3. Md. Neseem

4. Rubi Parveen

5. Md. Belal

6. Smt. Tabasum Khatun

7. Smt. Savida Khatun .... Appellant(s) Versus.

1. Sunil Kumar Bajpai

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kanpur.

             3. Ashok Kumar Mishra.                            ... Respondent(s).
                                        ----
          CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                      THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
                                       -----

For the appellant(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate. For the Insurance Co: Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate.

-----

14/16.03.2021: 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 of the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

3. In this appeal, the appellants-claimants have prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to them by judgment and award dated 15.2.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-MACT, Giridih in M.V. Claim Case No. 67 of 2004.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation has been assessed on much lower side i.e. only Rs.2,74,000/- taking into consideration monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month whereas, it should be Rs.6000/- per month as the deceased was a motor mechanic and he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. He further submits that no future prospect has been awarded in this case. He also submits that the amount assessed and granted on the conventional head is much on lower side and is not in consonance with the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further Mr. Lall, counsel for the appellants, submits that deduction of 1/3 rd on the ground of personal expenses is on much higher side keeping in view of the dependency.

5. Mr. G.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the submissions of the appellants on the ground of dependency of the deceased. He submits that two married daughters and two sons aged about 30 and 31 years cannot be said to be the dependent upon the deceased. He further submits that the deceased was aged about 55 years and thus the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of future prospect. He further submits that Rs.10,000/- was correctly paid as funeral expenses.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the court below has assessed a sum of Rs.3000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. From the materials on record, I find that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month.

Be it noted that the deceased met with an accident on 30.11.2004. So far as future prospect is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future prospect in terms of judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get 10% of the monthly income towards the future prospect. So far as conventional head is concerned, in terms of judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are also entitled to get Rs.70,000/- but only Rs.10,000/- has been granted to the claimants.

7. Thus, I hold that the appellants-claimants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.60,000/- on the ground of conventional head and 10% of the monthly income should be taken into consideration on the account of future prospect. Thus, on re-calculation, the amount of compensation will be as follows.

Rs.3000/- + 10% of Rs.3000/-= Rs.3300/-

Rs.3300 X 12X 11= Rs. 4,35,600/-

1/3 X Rs.4,35,600= Rs.1,45,200/-

Rs.4,35,600-Rs.1,45,200= Rs.2,90,400/-

Thus, the amount of Rs.2,90,400/- + Rs.70,000/-(as mentioned earlier) = Rs.3,60,000/- will be just and fair compensation.

8. The awarded amount of Rs.2,74,000/- has already been paid to the claimants and thus the balance amount of Rs.86,400/- (rupees eighty six thousand four hundred only) should be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants within six weeks from today. If the said amount will not be paid to the claimant(s) within six weeks from today, the amount will carry 6% interest per annum.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Anu/-CP-2                                                   (ANANDA SEN, J.)