Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Yasoda Devi on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 690 of 2018
WITH
I.A. No. 10330 of 2018
----
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jage Shanti Market
Complex, Netaji Subash Road, Deoghar 814112.
... Appellant
-versus-
1. Yasoda Devi
2. Bijay Kumar
3. Uday Kumar
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are represented through their mother respondent
No.1 being natural guardian as their next friend.
4. Bhawani Debya
5. Kamla Devi (struck off, as it is reported that she has expired)
6. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
----
4/ 21.09.2021 I.A. No. 10330 of 2018
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel appearing for
the respondents.
2. Through this interlocutory application, the appellant-Insurance
Company has prayed for condoning the delay 192 days in filing this appeal.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the averments made
in interlocutory application, especially, paragraphs 6 to 13 of the interlocutory
application, I find that sufficient grounds have been shown to condone the
delay. I am inclined to allow this interlocutory application. Accordingly, the
delay of 192 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
4. This interlocutory application (I.A. No.10330 of 2018) stands
allowed.
M.A. No. 690 of 2018
5. It has been reported that respondent No.5 has expired.
Respondent No.5 is the owner of the vehicle. There is nothing on record to
suggest that liability was upon the owner as there is no violation of the
conditions of the policy. Name of respondent No.5 (Kamla Devi) is, thus, struck
off from the array of respondents.
6. On the request of the counsel for the parties this appeal is taken
up for final disposal.
7. Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 29.01.2018
passed by the District Judge I-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar in
Motor Accident Claim Case No.28 of 2011. The Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.13.05,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Five Thousand) as
compensation on account of death of the deceased.
8. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company submits that the deceased was Khalashi in the vehicle
bearing registration No. BR 40 9325. He submits that being a Khalashi, he was
not covered under the policy, thus, the Insurance Company should not have
been saddled with the liability to pay the compensation amount. He further
submits that the quantum of compensation is much on the higher side. He
submits that on account of future prospects, 50% enhancement has been
given, which is not in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus
Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits
that under the conventional head an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) has been awarded, which is also not in
conformity with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
9. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the vehicle was duly insured by the appellant-
Insurance Company. Documents will suggest that the additional premium was
paid for employees, which covers Khalashi also. There is nothing on record to
suggest that there was any violation of the conditions of the policy or that
Khalashi was not covered under the policy. He submits that this ground was
also not taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. So far as the
quantum is concerned, he submits that considering the age and income of the
deceased and also the fact that he has left behind his minor children,
Rs.13,05,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Five Thousand) has been awarded and
there is no illegality in awarding the said amount.
10. After hearing the parties as also considering the arguments of
learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that
there is no material on record to suggest that there is any violation of the
conditions of policy. The ground taken by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company before this Court, was not taken by the
Insurance Company before the Tribunal. This ground was not specifically
pleaded by the Insurance Company, thus, the Tribunal has correctly held that
there is no violation of the conditions of the policy. This finding needs no
interference.
11. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is concerned, I find that enhancement of 50% was granted on account of
future prospect. Further under the conventional head an amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) has been granted as
compensation. The deceased was a Khalashi, which is not a permanent
salaried job. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the age of the deceased, which 31
years, the enhancement on account of future prospect should be 40% of the
wages. Further, under the conventional head, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) has been granted, whereas the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has fixed
Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) as compensation under the
aforesaid head. Under these two heads, the Tribunal has awarded more
compensation than what it should have granted in terms of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. So far as the age, dependency and income is concerned, I am not
interfering with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Now, if the quantum of
compensation is recalculated on the basis of the aforesaid findings, it will be
as follows: -
Sl. Head Calculation Amount
No.
1 Compensation taking into consideration monthly 5000 x 12 x 16 9,60,000/-
income of Rs.5000/- and multiplier of 16
th
2 After deducting 1/4 on account of dependency 9,60,000 - 2,40,000 7,20,000/-
3 After adding 40% on account of future prospect 7,20,000 + 2,88,000 10,08,000/-
4 Compensation under the Conventional Head 70,000/-
5 Total 10,78,000/-
13. The just compensation, thus, comes to Rs.10,78,000/-. Claimants
are, thus, entitled to receive an amount of Rs.10,78,000/- as total
compensation, which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of claim application till actual payment. The amount of
compensation paid in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act should
be deducted from the aforesaid amount. The balance amount should be paid
to the claimants within two months from today. The statutory amount deposited
by the Insurance Company at the time of filing of this appeal is allowed to be
withdrawn by the Insurance Company.
14. This appeal stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
