Jharkhand High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance vs Purni Devi on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 137 of 2015
----
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited, through its Legal
Manager Mr. Dipankar Roy ... Appellant
-versus-
1. Purni Devi
2. Rawanti Kumari (Minor) represented through her mother and natural
guardian Purni Devi
3. Lakhia Devi @ Lakho Devi
4. Manoj Kumar ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents:
----
9/ 16.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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.
2. In view of the nature of the dispute and the appeal, this Court is of
the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by issuing notice to the owner
since the Insurance Company has already appeared.
3. Appellant Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award and
judgment dated 20.12.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.08 of 2009, by
which an amount of Rs.8,80,000/- has been assessed as compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The claimants are the widow, the mother-in-law and a minor
daughter of the deceased, who died in the motor vehicle accident. As a mini
truck bearing registration No. JH 01J 0261 was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, the said vehicle dashed the husband of the claimant No.1,
resulting in his death. The deceased was a labourer and was maintaining his
family, as all the others were his dependents. The Tribunal, after examining
the witnesses, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month,
though the claimant claims that the monthly income was Rs.6,000/-. The
Tribunal, thereafter, added 50% on account of future prospect and deducted
1/3rd from the amount on account of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has
allowed Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and
guardianship.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that in terms of the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi &
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 only Rs.70,000/- should have been the
amount to be assessed under the head of general and non-pecuniary
damages, i.e., conventional head. He submits that Rs.1,60,000/- is on much
higher side. He further submits that addition of 50% on account of future
prospect is absolutely bad as 40% would have been the correct percentage to
be added with the salary on account of future prospect. It has been further
submitted by the counsel for the appellant that 12% penal interest should not
have been awarded. He submits that the interest is also on much higher side.
6. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, I find that the factum of
the accident and the fact that the vehicle was insured is not in dispute. The
only dispute is with regard to calculation of the quantum. The submission of
the appellant is that on the conventional head Rs.1,60,000/- could not have
been awarded. While going through the entire judgment, I find that it was
claimed by the claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
The Tribunal has considered the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month only. This
Court feels that Rs.4,000/- per month, which has been assessed by the
Tribunal is on much lower side. In 2014, it cannot be said that a person was
earning Rs.4,000/- per month and was maintaining his mother, wife, child and
also himself. Thus, the amount of monthly salary assessed by the Tribunal is
on much lower side. Keeping in view the amount assessed and directed to be
paid. I am not inclined to interfere with the quantum, which has been
assessed. The amount of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is just
and needs no interference. I feel that the claimants have been duly
compensated. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
