Jharkhand High Court
Manti Devi vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 633 of 2017
1. Manti Devi
2. Priyanka Kumari
3. Baby Kumari
4. Deepak Kumar
5. Nishu Devi .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2. Ritu Raj .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
------
09/01.09.2021
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation as awarded to them vide award dated 08.03.2017 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (MVACT), Hazaribag
in Claim Case No. 45 of 2007.
3. The case arises out of Motor Vehicle Accident, which had occurred on
28.12.2006. It is alleged that offending vehicle "Ritu Raj" Bus bearing
Registration No. JH 01M 0101 was being driven by the driver rashly and
negligently. It was coming from Ranchi and it crushed the deceased Arun Kumar
at Birsa Market as a result of which deceased received fatal injuries and died on
the way to hospital. The deceased, as per the claim application, was aged about
40 years. The deceased was a dealer of food articles and Kerosene Oil and was
earning Rs. 10,500/- per month.
4. The owner of the truck appeared and filed written statement. He had taken
a plea that the vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd.
It was submitted that driver of the offending vehicle also had valid and effective
driving licence at the time of alleged accident.
5. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement, taking
several preliminary objection inter-alia that the instant claim is not maintainable
in present form, the claim is bad by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and is
barred by limitation. Further as per them, the compensation claimed is excessive
and without any basis.
6. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidences the Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.
5,32,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of award if paid
within 30 days, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. The
claimants filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the awarded amount.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the income has
been assessed notionally, which is actually incorrect. He submits that the deceased
was earning Rs. 10,500/- per month as a dealer of Food Articles and Kerosene Oil
but the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 3000/- only per month which is
on a much lower side, without any basis. Further no compensation on account of
"Future Prospect" has been granted by the Tribunal. He submits that in terms of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation on account of "Future
Prospect".
8. Counsel for the insurance company submits that the amount has correctly
been assessed. He submits that there is no scope of interference in the aforesaid
award.
9. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for enhancement
of compensation. From the submission of the parties, I find that Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
10. From the argument advanced by the parties and the nature of dispute, I am
only confining myself to the points raised by the parties and I am not addressing
the admitted facts of this case. As per evidence and documents the deceased was
a dealer of Food Articles and Kerosene Oil. Admittedly vehicle bearing
Registration No. JH 01M 0101 was involved in the accident resulting in the death
of the deceased.
It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Admittedly there is no violation of the term of the policy. It is
admitted that deceased left behind his wife and four children. The dependency
and age are also not disputed. Since all these facts are admitted, I am not dealing
with these admitted facts in details in this appeal, I am only dealing with the
dispute which is raised by the counsel for the appellants.
11. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, I find that oral evidence
suggests that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,500/- per month but the Tribunal
did not accept the same since as per the Tribunal, evidences were not cogent. The
Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month. From
the record, I find that there is no documentary evidence in proof of income. Even
though, there is no documentary evidence, the facts remains that he was
maintaining a family which consisted of his wife and four children. There are
documents to suggest that the deceased was in business. This clearly suggests that
whatever may be his income it cannot be Rs.3000/- per month. For the purpose of
assessing compensation, this Court feels that he must be earning around Rs.
7500/- per month at the time of his death which is in the year 2006. Thus this
Court takes the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7500/- per month for the purpose
of calculating the amount of compensation.
12. So far as the conventional head is concerned, this Court feels that
Rs.70,000/- should have been granted as compensation on the aforesaid head in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited (Supra).
13. So far as future prospects is concerned, I find that deceased was in the age
group of 40-50 years, thus 25% compensation should have been added on account
of "Future Prospects". Thus, in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) appellants are
entitled to receive further enhancement to the tune of 25% and as per the age of
the deceased the correct multiplier would be 15.
14. Admittedly deceased has left behind his wife and four children.
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited (Supra) and applying the same, this Court is of the
view that 1/4th should be deducted on account of personal expenses.
15. So far as interest rate is concerned, I find that @ 7% p.a would be the
correct interest rate which should be paid on the amount of compensation in place
of @ 6% p.a. Thus considering what has been held above, the just and fair
compensation would be calculated as under:-
Rs. 7500/- x 12 x 15(multiplier) = Rs. 13,50,000/-
Rs. 13,50,000/- - 1/4th (Dependency) = Rs. 10,12,500/-
Rs. 10,12,500/- + 25% (future prospects) = Rs. 12,65,625/-
Rs. 13,78,125/- + 70,000/-( Conventional Head) = Rs. 13,35,625/-
16. As per this Court the amount of Rs. 13,35,625/- is the just compensation
which the appellants are entitled to receive. In this case the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,32,000/- as compensation. Thus, as per the calculation above, the appellants
are entitled to receive a further sum of Rs.8,03,625/-. The balance amount should
be paid within a period of two months. This balance amount will carry interest @
7% p.a from the date of the award till the said payment is made.
17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
