Ilyas Ansari vs Avinash Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1438 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                          M.A. No. 58 of 2016
        Ilyas Ansari.....................                           Appellant(s)
                                Versus
        1. Avinash Kumar
        2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance
           Company Ltd. & Anr............                        Respondents
                                ......

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen ......

        For the Appellants            : Mr. Rajiv Karn, Advocate
        For Respondent No.2           : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
        For Respondent No. 1          : Mrs. J.K.Mazumdar, Advocate
                                ......

9/22.03.2021      Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the

insurance company and the learned counsel for the owner.

This is an application for enhancement of the compensation amount. The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Dhanbad has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,33,500/-. The claimant, who is the husband of the deceased, prays for enhancement of the said compensation.

Claimant submits that the income, which has been assessed at Rs. 3000/- P.M., is absolutely on the lower side. He submits that the said amount is the notional amount, but in this case the deceased was earning by selling bangles and stitching clothes thus the monthly income should have been assessed on a much higher side. He further submits that so far as general and non-pecuniary damage is concerned a very nominal amount has been awarded, which is not in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Limited - versus- Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680".

Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was selling bangles or was in the business of stitching clothes. He submits that it is only the claimant who has made the aforesaid statement. He submits that though there is no occasion to produce any documentary evidence but at least some witnesses should have come forward to support the aforesaid claim of the claimant, but in this case no one has come forward to give the aforesaid statement.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the Award. The accident is admitted so is the factum of insurance. Thus, the only controversy is of quantum. I find that the multiplier has been correctly applied in this case. So far as the income is concerned, I find that there is no oral evidence to suggest that the deceased was doing business

of stitching clothes and selling bangles. In absence of the aforesaid evidence, Rs. 3000/- P.M. notional income has been taken by the court. I find no illegality in fixing Rs. 3000/- P.M.

But, so far as future prospect is concerned, I find that nothing has been awarded to the claimant on account of future prospect. Further I find that on account of non-pecuniary damage only a sum of Rs. 9500/- has been awarded. As per the judgment of the 'Pranay Sethi' (supra) Rs. 70,000/- has to be awarded on account of non-pecuniary damage. Thus, I find that if 40% future prospect is awarded and Rs. 70,000/- is awarded as non-pecuniary damage, the amount of compensation can be enhanced to Rs. 1,99,100/-. To round off, this Court feels that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- more is to be given to the claimant as enhanced compensation. Thus, I direct the insurance company to pay a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the amount will carry a simple interest @ 7% P.A. from today till the date of payment.

Thus, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp. 2