Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sugiya Devi vs Umesh Prasad on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.140 of 2015
----
1. Smt. Sugiya Devi
2. Ranjit Mandal
3. Smt. Judani Devi
4. Smt. Sita Devi ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Umesh Prasad
2. Ashraf Hussain
3. United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager,
Giridih Branch, Giridih.
... Respondents
----
WITH
M.A. No.197 of 2015
----
United India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager,
Giridih Branch, Giridih.
... Appellant
-versus-
1. Smt. Sugiya Devi
2. Ranjit Mandal
3. Smt. Judani Devi
4. Smt. Sita Devi
5. Umesh Prasad
6. Ashraf Hussain ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
In M.A. No.140 of 2015
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondents:
(Insurance Company) Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
----
In M.A. No.197 of 2015
For the Appellants : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
----
7/ 16.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
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 complain
with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company and the
Claimants submit that it is not necessary to substitute the heirs and legal
representatives of the driver, as the right to sue does not survive after the
death of the driver since no order has been passed against the driver by the
Tribunal.
Accordingly, the parties are exempted from filing any substitution
petition.
Miscellaneous appeal being M.A. No.140 of 2015 has been
preferred by the claimants praying to enhance the amount of compensation,
whereas the miscellaneous appeal being M.A. No.197 of 2015 has been filed
by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum and praying to reduce the
quantum.
I have heard the counsel for the claimants and the Insurance
Company. The factum of accident is not disputed nor the fact that the vehicle
was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of death of the deceased.
The deceased was selling Muri (puffed rice). A vehicle bearing registration No.
JH 11C 2868, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
the deceased, resulting in his death. The deceased was 45 years of age. It is
the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per
month. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, assessed the
income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, the multiplier of
13 was applied in this case. A deduction of 1/4th from the salary on account of
personal expenses has been made. I find no illegality in the aforesaid
calculation and assessment made by the Tribunal. The only calculation, which
needs interference is assessment of funeral expenses. Only Rs.10,000/- has
been granted as funeral expenses. In terms of judgment pronounced by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
versus Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, I find that
Rs.70,000/- under conventional head should have been granted to the
claimants. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get further amount of Rs.60,000/-
under the aforesaid head.
Accordingly, M.A. No.140 of 2015 is allowed only to the extent of
directing the Insurance Company to pay a further sum of Rs.60,000/- to the
claimants within eight weeks from today, failing which the said amount will
attract an interest at the rate of 7% from today till the date of payment.
So far as M.A. No.197 of 2015 is concerned, the same is
dismissed. The statutory deposit is directed to be sent to the Tribunal
concerned and the Insurance Company will be at liberty to withdraw the same.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
