Jharkhand High Court
Anil Oraon vs The Divisional Manager on 20 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 569 of 2018
1. Anil Oraon
2. Batia Oraon
3. Birsa Oraon
4. Manisha Kumari .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. The Divisional Manager, the new India Assurance
Co. Ltd, Main Road, Ranchi.
2. Mustak Ansari ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH: VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): M/s Nikhil Ranjan and Amritansh Vats, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate.
-----
07/20.10.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants, wherein they have prayed for enhancement
of amount of compensation, granted to them by Award dated 24.2.2018 passed
by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35/2012.
3. The counsel for the claimants, who are the appellants before this
Court, during course of argument submits that the Tribunal has not considered
"future prospect" while assessing the compensation. He further submits that the
deceased was aged about 52 years thus 10% enhancement, considering future
prospect, should have been awarded. He further submits that in terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation on account of future
prospect and conventional head. He further submits that under the conventional
head, only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded, which in fact, should have been in
terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These are only
two points raised by the appellants-claimants during course of argument, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. Be it noted that the appellants accepted the age of the deceased as
52 years and the income of the deceased, which is Rs.5000/- per month and
multiplier, which has been assessed as 'eleven'. The appellants have also
admitted that the court has correctly deducted 1/4th of the income of the
deceased on account of personal expenses. The appellants, during course of
argument, stated that on the aforesaid counts, the Tribunal has not committed
any illegality.
5. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was
daily wage earner and was working as farmer and labourer, thus he is not
entitled to get any enhancement on account of future prospect. He also submits
that future prospect is granted to the persons, who are employed either by way of
self-employment or by way of any permanent nature of employment. As per him,
the farmer and labourer are not entitled to receive future prospect. So far as
compensation under the conventional head is concerned, counsel for the
Insurance Company submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) will govern the issue.
6. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find
that the factum of accident involving vehicle bearing Registration No. JH01V
6352 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was duly insured with
New India Assurance Company Limited. Further the fact that there was no
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, is also admitted by the parties.
The Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-, which the
claimants have also agreed to. The age of the deceased has been considered to
be 52 years as per the postmortem report, which is also admitted by the
claimants as well as the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4 th
from the income of the deceased on account of personal expenses, which has
also not been challenged by the claimants. The Tribunal has applied the
multiplier as "eleven", which according to the claimants and the insurance
company is correct. The only dispute, which surfaces in this appeal, is with
regard to the assessment of compensation after taking into consideration "future
prospect" and the amount of compensation under the "conventional head".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
has held that a person, who is self-employed, aged about 51 years, the
compensation should be enhanced by 10% on account of future prospect. In this
appeal, I find that the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a farmer and a
labourer. This fact clarifies that the deceased was self-employed and a self-
employed person like farmer and labourer also has some future prospect. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that a person, who is self-employed, is
entitled to receive enhanced compensation after taking into consideration his/her
future prospect.
8. The Tribunal, in the instant case, has not considered the fact that the
deceased had a future prospect. As per the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, considering the age of the deceased to be 52 years, 10%
enhancement should be awarded to the claimants on account of "future
prospect". The Tribunal has assessed the compensation to the tune of
Rs.4,95,000/- (excluding the conventional head). Thus, 10% of the aforesaid
amount, on account of future prospect, should be awarded to the claimants,
which is calculated as Rs.49,500/-. On account of conventional head, only
Rs.30,000/- has been awarded to the claimant. As per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.70,000/-
has been fixed as compensation on account of conventional head.
9. Thus, this Court feels that the claimants are entitled to receive a
further amount of Rs.49,500/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.89,500/-(rupees eighty nine
thousand five hundred). The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance
amount to the claimants, which will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the same is paid.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands
allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
