Jharkhand High Court
Gurubari Devi vs Ashok Kumar Addi on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 196 of 2020
----
1. Gurubari Devi
2. Milan Devi
3. Jaipal Hembrom
4. Manju Hembrom
5. Lakho Hembrom
6. Nandani Kumari .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Ashok Kumar Addi
2. Divakar Murmu
3. Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, through Claim Officer,
Dhanbad. . ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
For Insurance Co: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate.
-----
07/20.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of
quantum of compensation, awarded on 31.01.2020 in Motor Accident Claim Case
No. 38/2016 by the District Judge-II-cum-P.O., Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro, whereby, an amount of Rs.60,81,280/- has been
awarded as compensation.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants are entitled for
much more compensation than the compensation, assessed by the Tribunal. He
further submits that interest @ 9% p.a. should have been awarded in place of 7%
per annum. This is the only point which the claimants argued.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
amount of compensation has rightly been calculated taking into consideration each
and every aspect dealing with 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 rather if the
calculation is seen, it is evident that some extra amount has been granted to the
claimants, but, since the Insurance Company already satisfied the award, he is not
raising the aforesaid issue.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is admitted case that the
deceased was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited, a Government of India
undertaking. There is no dispute that the deceased was earning Rs.7,74,400/- per
year. Considering the aforesaid annual income of the deceased and the admitted
dependency, 1/4th has been deducted as personal expenses and thereafter
Rs.70,000/- has been added on account of conventional head. After adding the
conventional head, the total amount assessed was Rs.52,97,200/-. Over and above
the said amount, an enhanced @ 15% has been awarded as "Future Prospect",
thus the total amount of compensation awarded was Rs.60,81,280/-.
6. While going through the award, I find that future prospect has been
awarded in this case @ 15% considering the age of the deceased. Three is no error
in assessing the income, age, dependency of the deceased. All the components
which are necessary for calculating the amount of compensation have been
correctly considered. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned award. Further I find
no error in computation of the quantum of compensation, as each and every aspect
has been taken into consideration correctly by the Tribunal, as per the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. .
7. So far as interest part is concerned, 7% per annum has already been
granted from the date of filing of the claim application. I find no illegality in awarding
7% per annum interest on the amount of compensation.
8. Thus, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award dated
31.1.2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 38/2016 by the District Judge-
II-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
