Jharkhand High Court
Padmawati Devi vs Sri Ishwari Prasad @ Ishwari Yadav ... on 2 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 190 of 2015
1. Padmawati Devi
2. Sandhya Kumari
3. Archana Kumari
4. Puja Kumari
5. Bapu Kumar
6. Priti Kumari
7. Khushbu Kumari .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sri Ishwari Prasad @ Ishwari Yadav (Owner)
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
3. Sri Munna Yadav (Driver) .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. P.C Sinha, Advocate
For the Insurance Co. : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
------
13/02.09.2021
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation awarded to them vide award dated 06.01.2015 passed by the
District Judge -Cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Court No.1, Giridih in Title
(MV) Suit No. 63 of 2000.
3. The case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, which had taken place on
9.3.1999. It is alleged that deceased Nageshwar Prasad Mahta along with his
brother and Khalashi were coming from Mohania Ram Nagar after loading coal
in his truck and while they reached near Pratap Singh Hotel, G.T. Road, stopped
his truck and got down from the truck for changing the engine oil. It is further
alleged that while they were changing the oil of his truck, another truck bearing
No. BR 2G 5415 knocked them down, as a result of which deceased died on spot.
It is alleged that the offending truck was being driven by the driver in a rash and
negligent manner, resulting in this accident. The deceased, as per the claim
application, was aged about 43 ½ years. He was a Professor in Aadarsh College,
Raj Dhanwar and earning Rs. 9385/- per month, as claimed by the claimants.
4. After issuance of notice, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle
did not appear, thus the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them.
5. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement stating
therein that the case is not maintainable. They have taken the defence of
contributory negligence and non-production of document by the owner. They
further challenged the income and the age of the deceased
6. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidences the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.9,39,115/- along with interest. The claimants thus prays for enhancement of
the compensation amount.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the income of
the deceased was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that
dependency, multiplier and conventional heads entitlement have also not correctly
been applied while calculating the compensation. He submits that no "Future
Prospects" has been awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal. He further submits
that the age of the deceased was 43 ½ years, as such he had a very bright future
and the Tribunal has considered the income to be only Rs. 9385/- per month
although the deceased was Professor, so at least his income should be more than
Rs. 20,000/- per month and it is not proper to consider his income below Rs.
10,000/- especially when it is admitted that the deceased was a Professor.
8. Counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal after
considering all the aspects, has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.
9385/- per month. He submits that there are no scope to enhance the compensation
amount.
9. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for enhancement
of compensation. From the submission of the parties, it is clear that Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
10. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that the
deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration
No. BR 2G 5415 which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle
was registered with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The fact that the said
vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner is also not disputed. The
assessment of age of the deceased is also not disputed. Since all these facts are
admitted, I am not dealing with the admitted facts in details in this case. I am only
dealing with the dispute which was raised by the counsel for the appellants.
This Court is not interfering with the income of the deceased as the assessment
of income by the Tribunal i.e Rs. 9385/- per month is correct which is based on
evidence.
11. So far as future prospects are concerned. I find that deceased was a
permanent employee and age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, thus
30% enhancement should be granted on account of future prospects in terms of
judgement of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
12. So far as dependency is concerned, I find that Tribunal has deducted 1/4 th
which in fact should be 1/5th as there are seven dependants. As per the age of the
deceased, the multiplier of 14 should have been applied in place of 11 as applied
by the Tribunal.
13. So far as conventional head is concerned, in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and keeping in view
the time of accident, this Court feels that Rs. 70,000/- would be the appropriate
amount to be awarded under the conventional heads .
14. Thus considering what has been held above, just and fair compensation
can be calculated as under:-
Rs. 9385/- x 12 x 14(multiplier) = Rs.15,76,680/-
Rs. 15,76,680/- - 1/5rd (Dependency) = Rs. 12,61,344/-
Rs. 12,61,344/- + 30% (future prospects) = Rs. 16,39,747/-
Rs. 16,39,747/- + 70,000/-( Conventional Head) = Rs. 17,09,747/-
15. As per this Court amount of Rs. 17,09,747/- is the just compensation
which the appellants are entitled to receive. In this case the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.9,39,115/- as compensation. Thus the appellants are entitled to get a balance
amount of Rs. 7,70,632/-. 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
institution of this appeal till the said payment is made.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
