Jharkhand High Court
Ankur Sharma vs Nirmal Sharma on 15 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 121 of 2014
WITH
I.A. No. 1764 of 2014
AND
I.A. No. 3402 of 2018
----
Ankur Sharma ... Appellant
-versus-
1. Nirmal Sharma
2. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Malviya Marg,
Adarsh Bazar, Hazaribag.
3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lalji Hirji Road,
Ranchi.
4. Sri Sudhir Kumar Mathur
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
----
10/ 15.09.2021 I.A. No.1764 of 2014
Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the
respondents.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed to condone the delay
of 122 days in filing this appeal.
3. After hearing the parties and after going through the averments
made in the interlocutory application, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has
been shown to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 122 days in filing this
appeal is condoned.
4. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed.
M.A. No. 121 of 2014
5. On the request of the parties, this appeal is heard and disposed of
at this stage itself.
6. The issue involved in this appeal is very short for which it is not
necessary to pen down the facts in a very elaborate manner. This appeal is
filed by the claimant, whose father died in a motor vehicle accident. The
accident had taken place on 18.09.2000. There was a collusion between two
vehicles bearing registration numbers BR 17E 4703 (Maruti Car) and NL 01A
2715 (a container). As a result of the collusion, Sheo Ratan Sharma sustained
injury and died. This appellant, one of the son of the deceased, along with his
mother and elder brother, filed an application for grant of compensation, which
was numbered as Claim Case No.73 of 2001. During pendency of the accident
claim case, both the mother and the elder brother expired, leaving behind the
minor claimant-appellant (who is now major) to contest the case. The 5th
District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Hazaribagh, after recording the evidence and going through all the
documents and the evidences, awarded a sum of Rs.9,07,000/- as
compensation, which was to be paid by both the Insurance Companies, i.e.,
New India Assurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company
Limited, who were the insurers of the Car and the Container. The amount was
directed to be disbursed in equal proportion by both the Insurance Companies.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum and also by the condition of the award,
wherein it has been directed to keep 60% of the amount in a Monthly Income
Scheme for 10 (ten) years, the sole appellant has approached this Court by
filing this miscellaneous appeal.
8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in
terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi &
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, quantum of compensation should be
increased after taking into consideration the concept of "future prospect". He
submits that the deceased was 42 years at the time of death, thus, in terms of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) 25% enhancement should be granted to the claimant. He further
submits that in the award under the conventional head, Rs.7,000/- (Rupees
Seven Thousand) only has been granted, which, in fact, should be Rs.70,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Thousand) in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He further submits that in
terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, interest should have been
granted, but the Tribunal, without assigning any reasons, has refused to grant
interest, which is not in accordance with law. He submits that he is entitled to
receive interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim
application. He admits that he has got no grievance in respect of fixation of the
monthly income, dependency, multiplier or age of the deceased, as assessed
by the Tribunal.
9. Mr. G.C. Jha and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective Insurance Companies, submits that the appellant is
not entitled to receive any amount of interest, as because there were laches
on the part of the claimants, which delayed disposal of the claim application.
They further submit that considering the age of the claimant, who was minor,
the Tribunal had rightly directed to keep 60% of the awarded money in a
Monthly Income Scheme for a period of 10 years. They further submit that
there cannot be any enhancement of the compensation amount and as such
appellant has accepted and received the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
10. After hearing the parties and after going through the award, I find
that the compensation on account of "future prospect" has not been granted in
this case. In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and taking into consideration the age of the
deceased, which is 42 years, 25% of the awarded amount should be granted
to the appellant on account of future prospect. The Tribunal assessed
compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh), excluding
conventional head, thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% should be added over and
above the aforesaid amount.
11. So far as compensation under conventional head is concerned, I
find that only a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) has been
awarded to the claimants. In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) I hold that the appellant is
entitled to receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) under
the aforesaid head. The balance amount, which the appellant is entitled to
receive thus is: -
(i) Rs.63,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand) under the
Conventional Head; and
(ii) Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand)
under the pecuniary head.
12. The total balance amount, which the appellant is entitled to
receive is Rs.2,88,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand).
13. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, I find that this claim
application was filed in the year 2001. During pendency of this Motor Vehicle
Accident Claim Case, the mother and elder brother of the appellant died,
leaving behind the minor appellant (as he was then) to contest the case. The
last witness of the claimants was examined on 16.04.2008. Thereafter, the
claimant filed several documents, which were exhibited on 22.09.2012. After
22.09.2012, the Court directed the opposite party to produce evidence. The
opposite party did not chose to produce evidence and, ultimately, vide award
dated 05.08.2013, the claim case was disposed of, thus, I find that there was
substantial delay on the part of the claimants in pursuing this Motor Accident
Claim Case, but, from 22.09.2012, it was the duty of the opposite parties to get
the claim case disposed of at the earliest. This Court, thus, is of the opinion
that the appellant is entitled to receive interest for a period of approximately
one years from 22.09.2012 till the awarded amount of Rs.9,07,000/- (Rupees
Nine Lakh Seven Thousand) was disbursed at the rate of 8% per annum. The
Insurance Companies are directed to calculate the interest at the rate of 8%
per annum for the aforesaid period on the said sum of Rs.9,07,000/- (Rupees
Nine Lakh Seven Thousand). The amount of interest so calculated should be
paid to the appellant by both the Insurance Companies in equal proportion.
14. So far as enhanced amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.2,88,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand) is concerned, the same should be
paid within a period of two months from today by both the Insurance
Companies in equal proportion, i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty
Four Thousand) by each of them. If the said enhanced amount of
Rs.2,88,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand) is not paid within two
months from today, the said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the date of actual payment.
15. So far as the contention of the appellant that balance 60%
amount, which is kept under Monthly Income Scheme should be refunded to
him, the counsel for the appellant submits that he has already filed I.A.
No.3402 of 2018, but, considering the situation, he is not pressing the said
Interlocutory Application. He submits that on completion of 10 (ten) years, he
will approach the appropriate authority / Court to release the entire amount.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3402 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
16. This appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid modification in the
impugned award dated 5th August, 2013 passed in Claim Case No.73 of 2001.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
