Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Yasoda Devi Verma on 22 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 444 of 2016
----
National Insurance Company Ltd., Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur,
PO and PS Bistupur, District Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur,
represented through its Dy. Manager and Incharge, Jharkhand Legal
Cell, Ranchi, National Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi Branch II
premises, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District
Ranchi. ... Appellant
-versus-
1. Smt. Yasoda Devi Verma
2. Gulab Prasad
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., City Centre IV, Bokaro, PO
and P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro.
4. Ashok Patal
5. Salauddin ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
----
6/ 22.09.2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance
Company and the learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company,
challenging the award dated 30.06.2016 passed by the District Judge 1st cum
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No.63 of
2007, by which an amount of Rs.13,02,500/- has been awarded to the
claimants as compensation. The Insurance Company challenges the award,
on the ground of assessment of quantum. It is submitted that the quantum has
been wrongly assessed and compensation on account of loss of consortium,
loss of love and affection, loss of estate has been awarded exorbitantly, 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. Another ground of challenge is issue
No.(iv), which was issue in respect of contributory negligence, wrongly decided
by the Tribunal.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that so far
as issue No. (iv) is concerned, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on
record, has decided the issue against the Insurance Company. He submits
that there is a specific finding on the basis of evidence on record that the
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing No. NL 02D 9288, which was insured by the appellant. It is admitted
case that the Insurance Company has led no evidence to substantiate their
claim that there was contributory negligence. In view of the said admitted
scenario, it is submitted by the counsel for the claimant-respondent that the
Tribunal correctly held that there was no contributory negligence. So far as
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents submits that
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) will govern the case.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the
records, I find that one of the issues framed by the Tribunal is issue No.(iv),
which is as follows: -
(iv) Whether there was contributory
negligence on the part of both the vehicles i.e.
trailer bearing No. BR 20G 5578 and the trailer
bearing No. NL 02D 9288.
5. The said issue has been discussed and decided at paragraph 13
of the award by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has led no
evidence. The Tribunal relied upon the testimony of A.W.2, who is an eye
witness to the accident. He stated that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. NL 02D 9288. The
Tribunal found that the testimony of the witness remained intact even in cross
examination, thus, the Insurance Company failed to prove that there was
contributory negligence. I find that no illegality has been committed by the
Tribunal by arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. Since no contrary evidence
was led by the appellant-Insurance Company to prove the contributory
negligence, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly held that there
was no contributory negligence.
6. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is concerned, there is no dispute in respect of monthly earning of the
deceased, dependency, age of the deceased and the multiplier to be applied.
The only dispute is in respect of excess amount granted under the head of
loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral
expenses. Under the aforesaid head, a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) has been awarded. In terms of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Thousand) under these heads combined together. The Tribunal, thus, has
awarded excess amount under the aforesaid heads.
7. Further, I find that on account of future prospect 30%
enhancement has been awarded in place of 25%.
8. Now, if we recalculate the amount of compensation in terms of
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the amount of just and fair compensation, which the claimants are
entitled to receive, would come to Rs.9,13,750/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirteen
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty). This calculation has been admitted by both
the parties. This Court, thus, holds that the claimants are entitled to receive a
sum of Rs.9,13,750/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred
Fifty) by way of compensation. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) has been paid by the appellant-Insurance Company
on account of interim compensation in terms of Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. After deducting the said sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand), the amount comes to Rs.8,63,750/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty
Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty). The claimants, thus, are entitled to
receive a further amount of Rs.8,63,750/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty Three
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty). This amount will carry an interest at the rate
of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of
actual payment. The entire payment should be made by the appellant-
Insurance Company within two months from today. If the payment is not made
by the appellant-Insurance Company within two months from today, the said
amount will carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
9. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance
Company before this Court at the time of filing of this appeal is allowed to be
withdrawn by the appellant-Insurance Company.
10. With the aforesaid modification in the award dated 30.06.2016
passed by the District Judge 1st cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro
in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No.63 of 2007, this miscellaneous appeal is
allowed.
I.A. No. 4660 of 2021
11. In view of the final order passed in the main miscellaneous
appeal, this interlocutory application seeking stay is rendered infructuous. This
interlocutory application (I.A. No.4660 of 2021) is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
