Jharkhand High Court
Raghunath Sao vs Balbir Kuer on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 354 of 2018
1. Raghunath Sao
2. Champa Devi .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Balbir Kuer
2. Nandu Yadav
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Patna. ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate.
For Insurance Co: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
-----
06/13.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of
quantum of compensation, awarded in M.V. Claim Case No. 10/2011 by the District
Judge-II-cum-MACT (Tribunal), Latehar vide order dated 24 th January, 2018,
whereby, an amount of Rs.3,04,000/- has been awarded as compensation.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that while assessing the
compensation, the income of the deceased was considered to be Rs.3,000/- per
month, which is notional income, though the claimants have led their evidences that
the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month.
He submits that the respondent have not disputed the fact that the deceased was a
motor mechanic and income of the deceased have not been controverted. He
further submits that in terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India 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. He submits that the
deceased, aged about 22 years at the time of death, was self employed person and
in that view 40% enhancement should have been awarded on account of future
prospect. He also submits that Rs.30,000/- has been granted in terms of loss of
estate and funeral expenses. He further submits that compensation on account of
loss of consortium was not granted, which the claimants are entitled to receive.
4. Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that the
claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of income of
the deceased and thus, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. So far as consortium is concerned, he submits
that consortium is awarded to the spouses , but in this case, the deceased was
unmarried so not entitled to receive any amount under the aforesaid head. So far as
future prospect is concerned, he further submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble
supreme Court will govern the issue.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that the claimants are the father and
mother of the deceased. The deceased, aged about 22 years, died in accident
involving a Truck bearing registration No. 38-K-0250. The deceased was un-
married. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was working as
Motorcycle Mechanic. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, stated in her
evidence that the deceased was a matriculate and was a motorcycle mechanic. This
fact has also been narrated by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the impugned award.
There is no evidence contrary, to disbelieve the statement of the mother of the
deceased that the deceased was a motor mechanic. The Insurance Company did
not cross-examine on this issue. The tribunal held that there is no documentary
evidence which suggest that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, thus
the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month.
The facts of the case suggest that the deceased was looking after his parents and it
can be said that he was working as Motorcycle mechanic. Motorcycle mechanic
must earn Rs.4,000/- per month and thus Rs.4,000/- per month is taken to be the
income of the deceased, which cannot be said to be on much higher side. Thus, this
Court feels that Rs.4,000/- per month should be the income of the deceased for the
purpose of calculating the compensation.
6. Admittedly, the deceased, aged about 22 years, was unmarried, thus
50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted as expenses incurred upon
himself. The multiplier which the Tribunal has applied is correct, which is 18 in this
case.
7. So far as enhancement on account of future prospect is concerned, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held that in the
case of self employed person, who died in an accident and is below 40 years of age,
40% enhancement should be awarded on account of future prospect. This
enhancement has not been granted to the claimants in the instant case by the
Tribunal. Thus, considering the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), this Court feels that 40% enhancement should
have been granted while assessing the compensation.
8. So far as loss of consortium is concerned, the claimants claim
Rs.40,000/- on account of consortium. Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance
Company submits that admittedly the deceased was bachelor. He further submits
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Ramesh Chand and Ors. report in MANU/SCOR/34536/2020 had
doubted as to whether parents are entitled to receive consortium or not? He also
submits that in that view the claim of the claimants that they are entitled to receive
Rs.40,000/- as consortium cannot be accepted.
9. To consider this aspect, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited
Vs. Somwati and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020) reported in (2020) 9
SCC 644 and its analogous cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the
aforesaid cases on 7th September, 2020 after taking into consideration the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and also in the
case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 410. In paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after considering the judgment of United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410, has
held as under:-
'33. The three-Judge Bench in the above case approved the
comprehensive interpretation given to the expression
"Consortium" to include spousal consortium, parental
consortium as well as filial consortium. The three-Judge Bench,
however, further laid down that "Loss of love and affection" is
comprehended in "Loss of Consortium", hence, there is no
justification to award compensation towards "Loss of love and
affection" as a separate head.'
10. From the aforesaid paragraph, now it is well settled that the expression
"Consortium" would include spousal consortium as well as parental consortium. It is
made clear that "loss of love and affection" is comprehended in "Loss of
Consortium". The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus held that the compensation is
granted in loss of consortium. This judgment clearly settled the issue, which has
been raised by Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company. Thus, in view of
the aforesaid judgment, Rs.40,000/- can be granted to the claimants on account of
loss of consortium.
11. Considering the aforesaid findings which is arrived herein above, just
and fair compensation can be calculated as follows:-
Rs.4000/- (income per month) X 12 X 18= Rs.8,64,000/-
50% less= Rs. 4,32,000/-
40% future prospect= Rs.1,72,800/-
Rs. 4,32,000+ Rs.1,72,800/- + Rs.70,000/- (consortium+ funeral expenses)=
Rs.6,74,800/-
12. Thus, this Court feels that Rs.6,74,800/- (six lakhs seventy four
thousand and eight hundred only) is the just and fair compensation, which the
claimants are entitled to receive. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,04,000/-
only as compensation,which is now enhanced to Rs.6,74,800/-. Thus, the balance
amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award
i.e. 24.1.2018 till the same is paid.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
