Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Paswan vs Umesh Pd. Yadav on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 529 of 2017
----
1. Jagdish Paswan S/o Noma Paswan
2. Jagmani Devi wife of Jagdish Paswan
Both resident of Village Ursu, P.O. Kasiadih, P.S. Tandwa, Dist:
Chatra ... Appellants
-versus-
1. Umesh Pd. Yadav S/o Yamuna Prasad Yadav, R/o Near Markham
College, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Mirro Branch, Prabhu
Niwas Market, Guru Govind Singh Road, Ananda Chowk,
Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S Hazaribagh, Distt. Hazaribagh.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellants: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
----
6/ 05.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.
2. From paragraph 27 of the impugned award, I find that a liberty has
been given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner
of the vehicle. This direction is not backed by any concrete finding that there
was violation of any terms of policy and which terms of the policy has been
violated. Thus, prima facie, I find that the aforesaid direction is not in
accordance with the pleadings, evidence and findings, accordingly, it is not
necessary to issue any fresh notice to the respondent No.1, who is the owner
of the offending vehicle.
3. On the request of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at
this stage itself.
4. In view of the admitted facts and in view of the recent judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali &
Another versus Shyam Mishore Murmu & Another reported in (2022) 1
SCC 317, it is not also necessary to call for the Lower Court Records.
5. Claimants are the parents of the deceased, child, who was aged
about 12 years. The child died in a motor accident involving a Tractor, bearing
Engine No.S374C22351 and Chasis No.914314115495. The said tractor was
duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd.
6. The fact that the child was aged about 12 years and the fact that
he died in motor accident involving Tractor bearing Engine No.S374C22351
and Chasis No.914314115495 is not disputed. The fact that the United India
Insurance Company Ltd. was an insurer of the vehicle is also not disputed.
Only dispute is with regard to quantum of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- considering the
age of the deceased. Though, in paragraph 27 of the impugned award, a right
to recovery has been granted to the Insurance Company to recover the
amount from the owner of the vehicle, but from paragraph 24, it is quite clear
that there was no ground to grant the aforesaid liberty. Thus, this Court holds
that the aforesaid direction of right to recovery does not commensurate with
the findings at paragraph 24 of the impugned award.
7. On the point of quantum, recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra) has been placed before me. In
the aforesaid case, deceased was aged about 7 (seven) years, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has calculated the quantum of compensation holding
that Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per annum should be
considered as notional income and has awarded Rs.4,70,000/- as
compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied Schedule II of the Motor
Vehicles Act for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. Paragraph 16 of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari (supra) needs to
be quoted herein, which reads as under: -
16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional
income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/ (Rupees twenty-five thousand
only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is
multiplied with applicable multiplier of 15, as prescribed in
Schedule II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000 x multiplier 15)
towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000 each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000
towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the
following amounts towards compensation:
(a) Loss of dependency : Rs.3,75,000-00
(b) Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2): Rs.80,000-00
(c) Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000-00
Total : Rs.4,70,000-00
8. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of Kurvan Ansari
(supra) squarely covers the case in hand. Thus, the amount of compensation
is enhanced to the tune of Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy
Thousand) in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kurvan Ansari (supra). The balance amount should be paid to the claimants-
appellants within 8 (eight) weeks. The balance amount will carry an interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award passed by the Tribunal till the
date of payment.
9. This appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
