Jharkhand High Court
Vaghmani Devi vs The Branch Manager on 15 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 42 of 2014
1. Vaghmani Devi
2. Madhubala Devi
3. Deepak Kumar Thakur
4. Roshan Kumar Thakur .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Branch Office at Jaldega, Simdega
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gumla.
... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.
For Insurance Co: Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate.
-----
10/15.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not necessary to hear the owner and driver of the offending vehicle
as neither any adverse order has been passed against them nor any liability has
been fastened upon them. The Insurance Company against whom the award has
been passed, has appeared.
3. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of
quantum of compensation, awarded in MACC No. 15/2010 by the District Judge-
cum-MACT, Simdega, vide order dated 31.7.2013, whereby, an amount of
Rs.1,99,116/- has been awarded as compensation.
4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation should be
increased taking into consideration the future prospect. 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 further submits that admittedly the deceased was
aged about 45 years at the time of accident and that being so, the multiplier 14
should be applied in this case and not of 13. He also submits that under
conventional head, Rs. 70,000/- should have been awarded to the claimants in
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra). He lastly submits that the deceased died leaving behind four dependents
and thus on account of personal expenses, 1/4 th should have been deducted and
not 1/3rd.
5. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident had
taken place on 31.3.1997, thus considering the date of accident, no future prospect
should be awarded to the claimants. He also submits that admittedly the deceased
was a temporary employee in Bank of India, which is evident from the deposition of
CW-5, who was the then the Assistant Manager of the said Bank. He also submits
that deceased being the temporary employee, the claimants are not entitled for any
enhancement of compensation amount. So far as multiplier is concerned, the
counsel for the Insurance Company admits that multiplier should be 14 and not 13.
He further submits that since the accident had taken place in the year 1997, the
claimants are not entitled to Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head.
6. After hearing the parties, I find that the dispute only remains in respect
of compensation on account of future prospect and compensation on account of
conventional head. The factum of the accident and the fact that the vehicle was
insured with National Insurance Company Limited are not disputed. It is not disputed
that there is any violation of terms and condition of the policy and the monthly
income of the deceased.
7. It is admitted case that the deceased was 45 years at the time of death
and considering the age of the deceased at the time of death, the multiplier would
be 14 in this case.
8. Admittedly, the deceased died leaving behind 4 dependents. When the
deceased died leaving behind four dependents, the deduction towards personal
expenses should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. So far as compensation under the head of
future prospect is concerned, I find from the impugned award that C.W.5 has stated
that the deceased was a temporary employee but if he would have been confirmed
then he might have been promoted also. From the evidence on record, it appears
that the deceased was working in the Bank of India temporarily, but he was working
regularly. This evidence suggests that the deceased had future prospect.
9. Considering the aforesaid status of the deceased employee and further
considering the fact that no compensation on account of future prospect has been
granted, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), this Court feels that 30% enhancement should be granted to
the claimant on account of future prospect. So far as compensation under the
conventional head is concerned, I find that admittedly the death of the deceased had
taken place in the year 1997, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra) had held that Rs.70,000/- to be granted under the conventional head.
Be it noted that the year of accident which led to the decision in the case of Pranay
Sethi is before the year 2011. This Court thus feels that a sum of Rs.50,000/- on
account of conventional head in the instant case is sufficient.
10. Considering the aforesaid findings which I arrived, the just and fair
compensation can be calculated as follows:-
Rs.2304/- (income per month) X 12 X 14= Rs.3,87,072/-
Rs.3,87,072- Rs.96,768(1/4th less)= Rs.2,90,304/-
30% future prospect= Rs.87,091/-
Rs.2,90,304+ Rs.87,091/- + Rs.50,000/- (conventional head)=
Rs.4,27,395/-
11. Thus, this Court feels that Rs.4,27,395/- (rupees four lakhs twenty
seven thousand and three hundred ninety five only) is the just and fair
compensation, which the claimants are entitled to receive. The Tribunal had
awarded a sum of Rs.1,99,116/- only as compensation,which is now enhanced to
Rs.4,27,395/-. The Insurance Company is directed to disburse the balance amount,
which will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from January 2019 till the
same is paid.
12. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal stands
allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
