Jharkhand High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Koushalya Devi on 30 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 450 of 2017
------
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Koushalya Devi
2. Laxmi Kumari
3. Chhoti Kumari
4. Suman Kumari
5. Chandni Kumari
6. Baby Kumari
7. Raj Kishore Thakur
8. Malti Devi
9. Jagdeo Yadav ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
05/30.09.2021: On the request of both the parties this appeal is disposed of at this stage
itself. The Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by District Judge
XI cum M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 310 of 2014.
Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance
Company submits that he is challenging only the computation of the compensation
which was done in respect of the amount awarded under future prospect and under
the conventional head. He submits that he is not challenging the income nor the
other parameters i.e. deduction on account of personal expenses, age and the
multiplier. He submits that in terms of the Judgment passed 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, since the deceased was self
employed and was aged less than 40 years, 40 % enhancement should have been
granted on account of future prospect in place of 50 % which has been awarded
in this case. He submits that in view of the Judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra),
the appellants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- only on account of conventional head
and not Rs. 1,60,000/-.
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
submits that though the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court on India in the case
of Pranay Sethi(supra) has mandated grant of 40 % increase in the compensation
amount on account of future prospect and Rs. 70,000/- on account of conventional
head but in the instance case the Tribunal found it proper to grant 50 %
enhancement on account of future prospect and Rs. 1,60,000/- on account of
conventional head which needs no interference.
After hearing the parties, I find that the dispute lies in a very narrow compass.
The dispute is in respect of what would be the compensation to be awarded on
account of future prospect and on account of conventional heads. This issue now
has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has
directed that on account of future prospect 40% compensation has to be granted
in cases where the deceased was self-employed and is below 40 years. In the
instant case, deceased was admittedly below 40 years and was self-employed
mason. Thus in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Pranay Sethi and other (supra), the claimants are entitled to receive
only 40 % enhancement on account of future prospect and not 50 %.
Under conventional head, in terms of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra),
the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 70,000. In this case Rs. 1,60,000/- has
been awarded which is not in conformation with the Judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/-. on
account of conventional head. Now if on basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the
amount of compensation is re-calculated the same will be as below:-
Rs. 6000X 12x 15(multiplier)= Rs. 10,80,000/-
Rs. 10,80,000/- -1/5(deduction)= Rs. 8,64,000/-
Rs. 864,000 + 40% (future prospect) = Rs. 12,09,600/-
Rs. 12,09,600 + Rs. 70,000 (Conventional Head) = Rs. 12,79,600/-
Since interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid, the
balance amount is Rs. 12,79,600 - Rs. 50,000 = Total Rs. 12, 29,600/-.
While going through the award, I find that no interest has been awarded to
the claimants. In terms of Section 171 of Motor Vehicle Act interest should be
awarded. Thus, I direct that the aforesaid amount will carry an interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the tribunal
till the amount is paid.
Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel submits that the entire amount has been
deposited before the Tribunal. Therefore, I direct the Insurance Company to
calculate the amount of interest in terms of the order passed today. If any further
amount is liable to be deposited by the Insurance Company, they should do so
within two months. It is further directed that if after calculation of the interest, any
amount needs to be refunded from the already deposited amount, after satisfying
this order in favor of the claimants, the Tribunal will refund the balance amount to
the Insurance Company. The Statuary amount deposited before this Court, at the
time of filing this appeal, should be refunded to the Insurance Company.
This appeal stands allowed.
Rajnish/c.p. 2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
