Jharkhand High Court
Gajanand Lal vs Md. Jamil Akhtar on 22 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 499 of 2017
1. Gajanand Lal
2. Manoj Kumar
3. Subhasini Kumari
4. Harsh Kumar
5. Shruti Kumari .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Md. Jamil Akhtar
2. Anil Kumar
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its Divisional Manager, Bokaro . ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate.
For Insurance Co: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
-----
08/22.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of the
quantum of compensation, awarded in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 18/2016 by the
Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bokaro, vide order dated 24.4.2017, whereby, an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- has been
awarded as compensation.
3. The case arises out of motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on
23.10.2014 at about 7:00 a.m. While the deceased- Kanti Devi after plucking the
flowers, was returning to her quarter and when she reached in between the Nala
and the road, one Alto Car bearing registration No. JH 09W-0776 dashed the
deceased, due to which she sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious.
Thereafter the deceased was taken to Bokaro General Hospital for treatment and
during the course of treatment, the deceased died on the date of accident.
4. The owner-cum-driver of the offending car and the National Insurance
Company Limited appeared and filed their written statements on 21.4.2016 and
22.3.2016, respectively.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, seven issues were framed
by the Tribunal, which read as under:-
(I) Whether this compensation case is maintainable or not?
(ii) Whether this case is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of any
necessary party?
(iii) Whether the claimants of this case have got valid cause of action
for filing this case?
(iv) Whether the death of deceased- Kanti Devi took place in the road
accident on 23.10.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
offending vehicle i.e. the Maruti Alto Car having Registration No. JH
09W-0776?
(v) Whether the offending Maruti Alto Car having registration No. JH-
09W -0776 was duly insured under the Insurance Policy of Opp. Party
No. 3, i.e. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 23.10.2014 at the time of
the accident?
(vi) Whether there is any violation of terms and conditions of the
policy?
. (vii) Whether the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.27,000/-
(Rs. twenty seven thousand) as a milk seller and from business?
(viii) To what extent the claimants are entitled to receive the amount of
compensation and from whom?
6. The tribunal, thereafter, on the basis of the evidences, has held that the
deceased died due to rash driving of the offending Alto Car. The issue with regard to
violation of terms and conditions of the policy has also been decided in favour of
claimants. Thereafter, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased as
Rs.15,000/- and taking 05 as multiplier, proceeded to award compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,85,000/- including funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to children. Rs.50,000/- was already
paid to the claimants as ad interim compensation. Thus, the Tribunal assessed the
balance compensation amount payable to the claimants as Rs.1,85,000-
Rs.50,000/- = Rs.1,35,000/-.
7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had assessed
Rs.15000/- as annual income of the deceased, which is much on the lower side. He
further submits that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 the multiplier at
least 07 should be applied in this case.
8. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since there was no
material in support of the income of the deceased that she was earning Rs.27,000/-
per month, it is a case of no fixed income. He further submits that on the basis of
oral evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the deceased was running business
of Dairy Farm and after considering the evidence of witnesses, the tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per year. So far as
multiplier is concerned, the counsel for the Insurance Company submits that taking
into consideration the age of the deceased as 61 years, which appears from the
post-mortem report (marked as "X"), the same has been correctly applied by the
Tribunal as 05. He also submits that on conventional head, the tribunal had granted
Rs.1,25,000/- which should have been Rs.70,000/- as per the judgment of Pranay
Sethi (supra).
9. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that
the dispute only remains with the assessment of compensation after assessing the
income of the deceased, the compensation on account of conventional head and the
multiplier. The factum of the accident and the fact that the vehicle was insured with
M/s National Insurance Company Limited are not disputed. It is not disputed that
there is no violation of terms and condition of the policy.
10. On the point of income of the deceased, I find that the claimants have
stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.27,000/- per month. The Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per year. The claimants
have not put forth any evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was
earning Rs.27,000/- per month. The record suggests that the deceased was running
a dairy. The witnesses have also stated that the deceased was running a dairy farm
and they were taking milk from the dairy of the deceased. This Court, on the basis of
the evidence, cannot conclude that the income of deceased was merely Rs.15,000/-
per year. This Court feels that it can be safely concluded that the deceased was
earning Rs.4000/- per month at the time of accident.
11. On the conventional head, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and keeping in view of the time
of accident, this Court feels that Rs.70,000/- would be the appropriate amount to be
awarded under the conventional head. So far as multiplier and dependency is
concerned, this Court feels that the multiplier should be 07 in place of 05 (which has
been used by the tribunal).
12. Considering the aforesaid findings which I arrived, the just and fair
compensation can be calculated as follows:-
Rs.4000/- (income per month) X 12 X 7= Rs.3,36,000/-
Rs.3,36,000- Rs.1,12,000(1/3rd less)= Rs.2,24,000/-
Rs.2,24,000+ Rs.70,000/- (conventional head)=
Rs.2,94,000/-
13. Thus, this Court feels that Rs.2,94,000/- (rupees two lakh ninety four
thousand only) is the just and fair compensation, which the claimants are entitled
to receive. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- only as compensation,
which is now enhanced to Rs.2,94,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to
disburse the balance amount to the claimants, which will carry an interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the same is paid.
14. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal stands
allowed.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
