Jharkhand High Court
Sohari Devi vs Md. Jamruddin Anshari on 23 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 72 of 2015
1. Sohari Devi
2. Sarwan Uraon
3. Bijay Uraon
4. Kapil Deo Uraon..................... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Md. Jamruddin Anshari
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ......... Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Insurance Company : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
......
9/23.03.2021 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 to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Both the parties, i.e. the lawyers appear on behalf of the
appellants and the insurance company submits that this appeal can be
disposed of finally at this stage itself. It is submitted that earlier notice was
directed to be issued to the owner of the vehicle and the notice was served
through his brother.
Considering the submission and after going through the award, I
find that in the award the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Chatra
directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants
without giving any liberty to recover the same from the owner. This means
that if any enhancement is made on the prayer of the claimants that
additional amount, if any, has to be satisfied by the Insurance Company
themselves and not by the owner and that being so, it is not necessary to
defer this case awaiting appearance of the owner.
In this appeal the claimants-appellants have prayed for
enhancement of the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has
appeared. Total amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs.
2,48,400/-.
The deceased was aged about 60 years as per the Post Mortem
report and 50 years as per the claimant. The claimants submitted that the
deceased was a vegetable seller and was earning Rs. 7000/- P.M. Because
of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, bearing registration no. BR
13P- 2778, on which the deceased was travelling, the said vehicle met with
an accident resulting in death of the deceased. The claimants are the heirs
of the deceased.
In this case, I find that the factum of insurance is not disputed.
The death is also not disputed. The claimants have stated that the
Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.
3000/- P.M. when as per their claim it is Rs. 7000/- P.M. It is further
submitted that at least Rs. 4000/- should have been the minimum
monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that considering
the dependency the amount of Rs. 1/4th should have been deducted in
view of 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", but in the instant case the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd which
is not the correct application. It is submitted that the compensation on
account of non-pecuniary damages has not been paid in terms of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Pranay Sethi"
(Supra).
Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company opposes the prayer and submits that the accident has taken
place in the year 2009 and in the year 2009 it cannot be said that a
vegetable seller was earning Rs. 7000/- P.M.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal
has assessed the income @ Rs. 3000/- P.M. According to this Court, Rs.
3000/- is on the much lower side. Even if the accident has taken place in
the year 2009, at least Rs. 4000/- should have been assessed as the
income of the deceased. So far as the multiplier is concerned, I find that
the correct multiplier of 9 has been applied in this case. So far as the
deduction on account of personal expenses is concerned, I find that there
are several dependants of the deceased. Thus, 1/4th would have been the
correct deduction on account of personal expenses. On account of non-
pecuniary damages, the Tribunal should have been awarded Rs. 70,000/-
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Pranay Sethi"
(Supra). The Tribunal has also granted the future prospect, but the said
calculation is bit on higher side. Re-calculating the entire compensation by
applying Rs. 4000/- as monthly income of the deceased and after
deducting 1/4th from this amount and also after granting Rs. 70,000/- on
account of non-pecuniary damages, the total amount of compensation
comes to Rs. 4,26,000/-. According to this Court, Rs. 4,26,000/- would be
the just and fair amount of compensation. Thus, I hold that the
appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.
4,26,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, the insurance company has
already paid an amount of Rs, 2,48,400/- as compensation as per the
Award. Thus, the appellants are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.
1,77,600/- to round off Rs. 1,78,000. Thus, I direct the Insurance
Company to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- to the claimants-
appellants, within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the
amount will carry a simple interest @ 6% P.A. from today till the date of
payment.
This appeal thus stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp. 2
