Jharkhand High Court
Mina Devi vs Carrier Corporation Of India ... on 24 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 507 of 2018
1. Mina Devi
2. Bahadur Mahto .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Carrier Corporation of India In-charge Harvendra Singh
2. Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. represented through Legal
Manager .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, ADvocate
------
6 /24.09.2021
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation awarded to them vide award dated 05.04.2018 passed by the
Principal District Judge -Cum- P.O-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Civil
Court, Bokaro in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 16 of 2016.
3. The case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, which had taken
place on 26.11.2015. It is alleged that deceased Mangal Mahto was returning
to his home by a Moped bike after doing the work of Rajmistry (Mason). At
about 3.00 p.m near Garke Ghati the driver of a Trailor bearing registration
no. NL 02K 3259 loaded with iron sheets rashly and negligently, dashed the
deceased from behind and the trailor also turned turtle due to which the
deceased came under the iron sheets and died on the spot. The deceased, as
per the claim application, was aged about 48 years. He was a Mason and was
earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, as claimed by the claimants.
4. After issuance of notice, the owner and the Insurance Company
appeared and filed their written statement. The owner stated in his written
statement that the claimants have not mentioned as to how the deceased
came back to his house after the accident. So, it is very much doubtful that
he has died due to incident occurred of the alleged trailor. He further stated
that, no allegation of default, mistake and liability has been made upon the
owner.
5. Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement
stating therein that the case is not maintainable. It is the contention of the
Insurance Company that at the time of accident the driver of the offending
trailor bearing Registration No. NL 02K 3259 had no valid and effective
driving license and has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the
policy and the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the oral
and documentary evidences the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune
of Rs.5,73,360/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. The claimants thus prays for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the
deceased was a mason and his monthly income was Rs.12,000/- per month.
He submits that Tribunal has considered the monthly income to be Rs.5720/-
per month which is absolutely incorrect. He submits that even if the
minimum wages of a skilled labour is taken into consideration which was
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased the income should not be less
than Rs.9120/- per month. He submits that in a connected claim case i.e
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 15 of 2016, arising out of the same accident,
the Tribunal had assessed the income of a skilled labour to be Rs.9120/- per
month. He submits that on the aforesaid ground the enhancement should be
made. He further submits that the appellants are entitled for compensation
on account of Future Prospects in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which has not been
considered.
7. Counsel for the insurance company submits that the there is no
documentary evidence on record to suggest that deceased was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month and in absence of the documentary evidence the
Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased to be
Rs.5720/- per month. He submits that Insurance Company have already paid
the amount which the claimants has received so they are not entitled to
receive any further amount.
8. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for
enhancement of compensation. From the submission of the parties, it is clear
that Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
9. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find
that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing
Registration No. NL 02K 3259 which was insured from Chola Mandalam
MS General Insurance Company Limited. The assessment of age of the
deceased, the multiplier and the conventional head are not disputed. Since
all these facts are admitted, I am not dealing with the admitted facts in details
in this case. I am only dealing with the dispute which was raised by the
counsel for the appellants.
10. While assessing the income of the deceased the Tribunal has
concluded that the income should be Rs.5720/- per month. It is positive case
of the claimant that the deceased was a mason. The respondents have not
controverted the aforesaid claim nor adduced any evidence to refute the
same. A mason is a skilled labour. Further I find that in the connected case
which arises out of the same accident being Motor Accident Claim Case No.
15 of 2016 the Tribunal considered the income of the skilled labour to be
Rs.9120/- per month. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.9120/- per
month should be taken to be income of the deceased for the purpose of
calculating the compensation. Further I find that the appellants are entitled
to receive enhance compensation on account of "Future Prospects" in terms
of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Considering the age of the deceased
to be 55 years, as assessed by Tribunal, enhancement of 10% should be
granted on account of Future Prospects.
11. Thus considering what has been held above, just and fair
compensation can be calculated as under:-
Rs.9120/- x 12 x 11 (multiplier) = Rs.12,03,840/-
Rs.12,03,840/- - 1/3rd (Dependency) = Rs.8,02,560/-
Rs.8,02,560/- + 10% (future prospects) = Rs.8,82,816/-
Rs.8,82,816/- + 70,000/-( Conventional Head) = Rs.9,52,816/-
12. As per this Court amount of Rs.9,52,816/- is the just compensation
which the appellants are entitled to receive. In this case the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,73,360/- as compensation. Thus the appellants are entitled to
get a balance amount of Rs.3,79,456/-. The balance amount should be paid
within a period of two months. This balance amount will carry interest @
6% p.a from the date of the award of the Tribunal, till the date of actual
payment.
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
