Jharkhand High Court
Suto Nag @ Suto Munda vs The Divisional Manager on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 732 of 2018
----
1. Suto Nag @ Suto Munda
2. Mangri Nag @ Mangri Devi ... Appellants
-versus-
1. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., S. N. Ganguly
Road, Main Road, Ranchi, at present Shaeed Chowk, Kutchery
Road, Ranchi.
2. Ajit Tiru
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
----
5/ 27.09.2021 I.A. No.916 of 2020
1. Heard learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.
2. Through this interlocutory application, the claimants-appellants
have prayed for condoning the delay of 295 days in filing this miscellaneous
appeal.
3. After hearing the counsel for the appellants and after going
through the averments made in the interlocutory application, especially,
paragraphs 3 to 9, I find that sufficient grounds have been shown to condone
the delay. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow this interlocutory application. The
delay of 295 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
4. This interlocutory application (I.A. No.916 of 2020) stands
allowed.
M.A. No. 732 of 2018
5. On the request of the parties, this appeal is being taken up for
final disposal at this stage itself.
6. Claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal praying for
enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded vide award dated
08.11.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.181 of 2011.
7. Counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, submits that the
deceased was minor aged about 8 years and was a student, having a very
bright future, thus, the Tribunal could not have granted a mere amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) as compensation. He submits that the
concept of future prospect has not been applied. He further submits that the
interest has been awarded from the date of admission of the claim case and
not from the date of filing the claim application. These are the three grounds
for challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.
8. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Insurance Company submits that, admittedly, deceased was aged about 8
years and by virtue of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no future
prospect can be granted in such cases. He submits that the lump sum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) as awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper compensation and the same does not need any
interference by this Court. So far as interest part is concerned, he submits that
the motor accident claim case was filed in 2011, which was admitted in 2015,
which clearly suggests that there was delay on the part of the claimants in
getting the case admitted, as the same was kept pending at the stage of
admission itself for more than three years.
9. After hearing the counsel for the appellants and the respondent-
Insurance Company, I find that the facts of the case are admitted. Deceased
was aged about 8 (eight) years, when a vehicle, bearing registration No. JH-
01-AD-2916, being driven rashly and negligently dashed her, resulting in her
death at the spot. The Tribunal, while considering the issues, has held that
there was violation of the policy and the insurer has right to recover the
amount paid from the owner after satisfying the award. Tribunal applied the
multiplier method, considering the notional income to be Rs.3,000/- and
concluded that the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh) as compensation. The claimants have challenged the same and prayed
for enhancement.
10. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 8 (eight) years. The
Hon'ble Supreme, in the case of Rajendra Singh & Others versus National
Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256 was
dealing with a case where the deceased was minor aged about nine years.
While dealing the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
judgment in the case of R.K. Malik versus Kiran Pal reported in (2009) 14
SCC 1 and also the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Satender
reported in (2006) 13 SCC 60. After considering the aforesaid two judgments,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), in
paragraph 15 has quoted paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of
Satender (supra). It is necessary to quote paragraph 15 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra):-
15. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender,
the deceased victim of the accident was a nine
year old school-going child. Considering the claim
for loss of future prospects in absence of a regular
income, it was observed that the compensation so
determined had to be just and proper by a
judicious approach and not fixed arbitrarily or
whimsically. The uncertainities of a young life
were noticed in the following terms (Scc p.64, para
12)
"12. In cases of young children of tender
age, in view of uncertainties abound,
neither their income at the time of death nor
the prospects of the future increase in their
income nor chances of advancement of
their career are capable of proper
determination on estimated basis. The
reason is that at such an early age, the
uncertainties in regard to their academic
pursuits, achievements in career and
thereafter advancement in life are so many
that nothing can be assumed with
reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the
income of the deceased child is capable of
assessment on estimated basis nor the
financial loss suffered by the parents is
capable of mathematical computation."
11. After considering the aforesaid observation, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment passed in the case of Rajendra Singh
(supra), has held as under: -
16. The deduction on account of contributory
negligence has already been held by us to be
unsustainable. The determination of a just and
proper compensation to the appellants with regard
to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts
and circumstances of the case does not persuade
us to enhance the same any further from
Rs.2,95,000 by granting any further compensation
under the separate head of "future prospects". It
may only be noticed that R.K. Malik does not
consider Satender on the grant of future prospects
as far as children are concerned.
12. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court feels that the amount, which has been awarded by the
Tribunal in this case, i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) is just and fair
compensation and needs no interference or enhancement. So far as interest
from the date of admission of the claim case is concerned, I find that the motor
accident claim case was filed in the year 2011, but the same was admitted
only in February 2015. This suggests that the case was pending at the stage
of admission for these long years and no one except the claimants can be held
liable for such delay. I find no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal
awarding interest from the date of admission of the claim case.
13. Considering the overall aspects, this appeal is, thus, dismissed,
as there are no grounds to enhance the amount of compensation.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
