Jharkhand High Court
Alomuni Devi vs Shriram E P C Limited Represented ... on 24 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 467 of 2019
------
Alomuni Devi ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Shriram E P C Limited represented through Sr. Project Manager, Raja
Annamalai Building, Chennai
2. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
06/24.09.2021: Heard the counsel for the appellant and heard the counsel for the Insurance
Company.
By filing this appeal the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the
compensation amount.
Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that income of the deceased has been wrongly considered as
Rs. 5,000/- per month. He submits that the deceased was a painter and was
earning Rs.4,00/- per day and thus was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He
submits that without any rationale, Rs. 5,000/- per month was considered to be the
monthly income of the deceased. He further submits that under conventional head
only sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded to be paid in place of Rs. 70,000 which
has been fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
Company submits that there was nothing on record to suggest that the deceased
was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He submits that in absence of any proof in
respect of income, the Tribunal has considered Rs. 5,000/- to be the monthly
income of the deceased and there is not fault in the aforesaid assessment. He
further submits that the owner of the vehicle had paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as
compensation. Thus, the tribunal had deducted the aforesaid amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- from the total amount of compensation and found that the claimant is
entitle to receive further amount of Rs. 2,86,000/-. He submits that there is no error
in the aforesaid issue and this appeal needs to be dismissed.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel further submits that the deceased was
in the influence of liquor and was travelling on the wrong side of the road which
resulted in the accident. Thus, the accident occurred due to the fault of the
deceased which was not considered by the Tribunal.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the
impugned judgment, I find that P.W. No. 2 has stated in his evidence that the
deceased worked at his house for 14 days and was paid Rs. 5,600/-. The claimant
has also stated in evidence that the deceased was a painter and was earning Rs.
400 per day. Since no document was produced the Tribunal assessed the income
of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. What was the ground to disbelieve
the statement of the claimant and P.W. No. 2 had not been mentioned in the
impugned award. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the fact that the
deceased was a painter. That being so the income assessed by the Tribunal as
Rs. 5,000/- per month is on a much lower side. This Court feels that the amount of
Rs. 7,500/- per month can be taken to be the monthly income of the deceased for
the purpose of assessing the compensation.
So far as compensating under the conventional head is concerned, I found
that only Rs. 30,000/- has been granted in place of Rs. 70,000/-, as per the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra). The
claimant are thus also entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/- as compensation under the
conventional head. So far as the multiplier, dependency and enhancement on
account of future prospect are concerned, I find that court below has considered
the correct rates. So far as the contention of Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel
is concerned that the deceased was in a drunken state, I find that no separate
appeal has been filed by the Insurance company and no evidence has also been
relied to that effect by the Insurance company. Thus, the aforesaid contention
cannot be considered at this stage.
Now considering what has been held above if the compensation is re-
calculated the same would be as below:-
Rs. 7,500 X12X18 = Rs. 16,20,000/-
Rs. 16,20,000 - ½ (Dependency)= Rs. 8,10,000/-
Rs. 8,10,000 + 40% (Future Prospect)= Rs. 11,34,000/-
Rs. 11,34,000 + Rs. 70,000 (conventional head)= Rs. 12,04,000/-
Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 12,04,000/-.
Out of the aforesaid total amount a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has to be deducted
which has already been paid by the owner of the vehicle to the claimant. The
balance amount comes to Rs. 7,04,000/-. Tribunal has directed to pay an amount
of Rs. 2,86,000/- as final compensation. If the said amount is deducted from the
balance amount the final amount comes to Rs. 4,18,000/-.
Thus, this court feels that Rs. 4,18,000/-. has to be paid by the Insurance
company to the claimant. The said amount will carry interest @ 6 % per annum
from the date of award till the same is paid. It is expected that the amount should
be paid within two months from today.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
Rajnish/c.p.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
