Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi vs Sudhir Kumar Jha on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 598 of 2019
----
1. Sarita Devi
2. Anu Shree
3. Saraswati Devi
4. Narayan Nishad .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Sudhir Kumar Jha
2. Barundeo Sharma
3. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Bokaro. ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate.
For Insurance Co: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
-----
05/20.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of
quantum of compensation, awarded in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No. 28/2017 dated
31.8.2019 by the District Judge-I-cum-P.O., Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro,
whereby, an amount of Rs.8,59,750/- has been awarded as compensation.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Truck
driver and his salary was Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has not
considered the same and his income has been considered as Rs.5850/- per month.
He submits that even if the minimum wages is considered, the income of the
deceased should be considered as Rs.6,500/- per month and not less than that
amount. He further submits that no enhancement on account of future prospect has
been granted, which is contrary to 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. He further submits that without
assigning any reason, the Tribunal has not granted interest on the awarded amount,
which is also contrary to Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He submits that the
claim application was filed in the year 2017, and was disposed of on 31 st August
2019, which suggests that there was no delay in disposal of the case.
4. Mr. Manish Kumar, Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
there is only oral evidence to the effect that the deceased was a truck driver. He
further submits that since there is no documentary evidence i.e. driving licence of
the deceased, which proves that the deceased was driving a Truck, the Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5850/- per month. He further submits
that so far as future prospect is concerned, the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra)
will govern the issue. On the question of grant of interest on awarded amount, he
fairly submits that no reason has been assigned in the award as to why the interest
has not been granted.
5. I have heard the parties and have gone through the impugned award.
During course of argument, the appellant has not raised any grievance in respect of
assessment of age of the deceased, multiplier, dependency and also in respect of
manner in which the accident has taken place. Both the parties admit that there is
no violation of the conditions of the insurance policy.
6. Considering the said submissions, the issue, which is involved in this
appeal is in respect of calculation of the income of the deceased and the amount of
compensation on account of future prospect and interest thereof. The tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5850/- per month. It is the case of the
claimant that the deceased was a truck driver, whose income is Rs.12,000/- per
month and there is documentary evidence to that effect. It is only the oral
submissions of the witnesses to that effect, which is on record, that the deceased
was a truck driver. The Tribunal has only considered the document, which is at Ext.-
X/7 i.e. driving licence of the deceased being Driving Licence NO. JH
09/2005/0011537. By the aforesaid driving licence, the deceased was authorized to
drive only light motor vehicle. This clearly suggests that the deceased was not
authorized to drive heavy motor vehicle i.e. truck and thus, the claim of the
claimants that the deceased was a truck driver, fails.
7. Admittedly, the deceased had a driving licence. The Tribunal assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.5850/-. A driver would have earned more than
Rs.5850/- even by driving light motor vehicle at the time of accident. Thus,
considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.6,500/- per month
can be taken to be the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating
compensation.
8. From the award I find that no compensation on account of future
prospect has been granted. Considering the age of the deceased, following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), this
Court feels that 40% enhancement should be granted to the claimants on account of
future prospect.
9. Considering the aforesaid findings, just and fair compensation can be
re-calculated as follows:-
Rs.6,500/- (income per month) X 12 X 15= Rs.11,70,000/-
Rs.11,70,000/-- Rs.2,92,500(1/4th less)= Rs.8,77,500/-
40% future prospect= Rs.3,51,000/-
Rs.8,77,500+ Rs.3,51,000/- + Rs.70,000/- (conventional head)=
Rs.12,98,500/-
10. Thus, this Court feels that Rs.12,98,500/- (rupees twelve lakhs ninety
eight thousand and five hundred only) is the just and fair compensation, which
the claimants are entitled to receive. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.8,59,750/- only as compensation,which is now enhanced to Rs.12,98,500/-.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive a balance amount of Rs.4,38,750/-.
11. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides for grant of interest. As
per the aforesaid provision, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for
compensation awarded under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to
the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from
such date not earlier than the date of making the claim application. Thus, the grant
of interest is a Rule and cannot be said to be exception. If no interest has been
granted, then reasons should be assigned for not granting such interest. If the
claimants are delaying the disposal of claim application, in that case it would be well
within the domain of Tribunal, not to grant interest on the amount of compensation.
12. This is not the case herein. The Tribunal has not granted any interest
on the compensation amount nor any reason has been assigned in the award to
refuse the same. This Title Motor Vehicle Claim Case was filed in the year 2017 and
the same was disposed on 31.8.2019. This clearly suggests that there was no delay
in disposal of the claim application and thus interest should have been granted to
the claimants on the amount of compensation. Thus, Insurance Company is
directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 8,59,750/- from the
date of claim application, till payment. Whereas, the balance amount i.e.
Rs.4,38,750/- will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of award passed by
the Tribunal, till the same is paid. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to
disburse the balance amount along with total amount of interest after calculation, as
directed, to the claimants within two months from today.
13. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal stands
allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
