Jharkhand High Court
Vishwanath Bhuian vs Binay Kumar Singh on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 428 of 2015
----
1. Vishwanath Bhuian
2. Radha Devi ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Binay Kumar Singh
2. National Insurance Company (Through Branch Manager) having its
Office at White Building, Main Bazar, Daltonganj, Dist. Palamau.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
----
12/ 29.11.2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the
counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.
2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming enhancement of the
compensation amount granted to the claimants by award dated 15.12.2014
passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-P.O., M.A.C.T. (Tribunal), Latehar
in Claim Case No.07 of 2011.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that the
compensation awarded is on much lower side. He submits that income of the
deceased was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- per month, which is
much on lower side, when there is evidence that deceased was working as
labour and was earning Rs.150/- per day. He submits that the fact that the
deceased was a labour is not disputed, thus, the assessment of his income by
the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- per month is much on lower side. He submits that
the compensation on account of future prospect has not been considered in
this case, which should have been in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus
Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also submitted
that under conventional head, only an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been granted,
which is also on much lower side and not in accordance with the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company
submits that since there is no evidence of income of the deceased, Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. He
submits that claimants should have come forward with some positive evidence
to suggest that the income of the deceased is Rs.150/- per day and in absence
of such positive evidence, he should be treated as an unemployed, thus, the
Tribunal rightly considered the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. He further
submits that, admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor, but, the Tribunal
deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenses in place of ½ (half). On the
aforesaid submission, he prays that no good ground has been put forth in this
appeal, which needs consideration, hence the appeal should be dismissed.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the
Lower Court Records and the award. Deceased was aged about 18-19 years.
Admittedly, he was unmarried. P.W.1 is Radha Devi, who happens to be the
mother of the deceased. She stated that her son was working as a labour and
was also engaged in agriculture for which he was earning Rs.3,500/- per
month. This statement has been recorded in paragraph 5 of her evidence. In
cross examination, there is nothing on record to demolish the aforesaid
statement. P.W.2 is Bhageshar Bhuian, who happens to be maternal uncle of
the deceased. He has not whispered about the income of the deceased.
Considering the evidence and the pleadings, I find that it is the case of the
applicant that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month as he was a
labour and was also working in agriculture farm. Though I find that there is no
documentary evidence in support of the income, I find that the fact that the
deceased was a labour has not been controverted. The income, which has
been claimed is Rs.3500/- per month, which cannot be said to be on the lower
side. Thus, in absence of any contrary evidence on the record, this Court is of
the opinion that Rs.3,500/- should be the monthly income of the deceased.
Admittedly, from the evidence and the documents on record, I find that the
deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier in the
instant case would be '18'.
6. The deceased, admittedly, was a bachelor, thus, 50% amount
should be deducted on account of personal expenses.
7. The deceased was self-employed, thus, in terms of the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
40% enhancement on account of future prospect should be granted.
8. Compensation on account of conventional head should be
granted to the tune of Rs.70,000/- in terms of the judgment passed in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra).
9. If I recalculate the amount of compensation on the aforesaid
proposition, the amount will be as under: -
Sl. Description Amount
No.
1 Compensation amount taking income as Rs.3500/- per month 7,56,000.00
using multiplier '18' (3500 x 12 x 18)
2 After deduction of 50% on account of personal expenses 3,78,000.00
(7,56,000 - 3,78,000)
3 After 40% enhancement on account of Future Prospect 5,29,200.00
(3,78,000 + 1,51,200)
4. After adding compensation under the conventional head 5,99,200.00
(5,29,200 + 70,000)
10. Thus, this Court holds that just and fair compensation would be
Rs.5,99,200/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred). The
Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakh Ninety Thousand). Thus, the balance amount comes to
Rs.2,09,200/- (Rupees Two Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred). This balance
amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of
judgment passed by the Tribunal till the same is paid. This balance amount
should be paid to the claimants within eight weeks from today. It is needless to
say that the amount, as per the award, which is Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh Ninety Thousand) along with interest, if not yet paid, should also be paid
immediately.
11. So far as the issues, i.e., manner of accident, the Insurance Cover
of the vehicle, liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount, are
concerned, the same are not disputed. I have not entered into the aforesaid
issues.
12. This appeal is, thus, allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar
