Jharkhand High Court
Haradhan Gorain & Anr vs Amit Kumar Pal & Anr on 19 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 82 of 2018
........
Haradhan Gorain & Anr. .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Amit Kumar Pal & Anr. .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Kumr Karn, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate.
........
04/19.03.2021.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karn on the
instruction of learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. B. Lal and
learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G. C. Jha.
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted, that though
notice has not been severed upon respondent -1, Amit Kumar Pal,
owner of the offending vehicle City Bus bearing registration No.
JH10L-0631, but this appeal may be heard in absence of the owner
as the Insurance Company has been saddled with the liability.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karn has
submitted, that the instant appeal has been preferred by the
claimants, namely, Haradhan Gorain and Niyati Devi, for
enhancement of the award dated 09.03.2017 passed by learned
District Judge-XV-cum-P.O., M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit
No.211/2012, whereby the claimants have been awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.8,32,743/- alongwith interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to be paid
within 60 days from the date of passing of award, failing which
Insurance Company would be liable to pay further interest after 60
days @ 12% per annum for the period of delay and the amount
already paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act ad-interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall be deducted.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
there is delay of 264 days in preferring the appeal and for
condonation of the same I.A. No.3205/2018 has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
reason for delay has been assigned in the Interlocutory Application,
as the appellants are parents of the deceased, they were not able to
preferred appeal in time, but admittedly the quantum of
compensation has been less paid to the claimants, as such, in a
benevolent legislation the same may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G. C. Jha
has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no specific reason has
been assigned in the Interlocutory Application for condonation of
delay and only after the awarded amount has been indemnified by
the Insurance Company to the claimants by cheque of Rs.9,38,176/-
dated 08.09.2017 then only this appeal has been preferred on
27.02.2018.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since the
enhancement appeal has been preferred with a delay, this Court will
examine the compensation as a just and fair compensation, but after
condoning the delay. However, for condonation of delay the
claimants shall not be entitled for any interest from 08.09.2017, the
date when the compensation has been indemnified to the claimants
till the date of issuance of notice to the Insurance Company on
02.05.2018.
Accordingly, the I.A. No.3205/2018 is being allowed and
disposed of.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Prit Pal
Singh a registered contractor, who has been examined as P.W.3 and
he has filed a certificate regarding income of the deceased, which
has been marked as Exhibit-1 with objection. Learned Tribunal has
considered less income of the deceased as notional income of
Rs.3,000/- per month and the future prospect of the deceased has not
been granted. Apart from that under the conventional head less
amount has been paid and interest has been granted @ 6% per
annum, as such, this Court may enhance the same by enhancing the
interest @ 7.5% per annum in view of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC).
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has
submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly refused the income
certificate of deceased produced and proved by Prit Pal Singh (P.W-
3) as the same has been exhibited with objection and the registration
number of firm has not been mentioned upon the certificate, as such,
learned Tribunal has rightly refused the same.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted,
that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction for personal and living expenses ought
to have been 50% as deceased was a bachelor, but no deduction has
been made in this regard, as such, this Court may not interfere with
the impugned award as after deduction the quantum of
compensation will remain same.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further
submitted, that this Court may examine the just and fair
compensation. in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of of Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager &
Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para-8 of which may
profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of
compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the
appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the
facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine
the just compensation. If the compensation determined by
it is higher than the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by
the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the
owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined
by the High Court is lesser than the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any
appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any
appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High
Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an
appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the
compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an
appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation."
Considering the same, let the appeal be admitted "For
Hearing.
Call for Lower Court Records.
Put up this case thereafter.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
