Jharkhand High Court
Phulo Devi vs The Branch Manager on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 361 of 2017
------
1. Phulo Devi
2. Srinath Gope
3. Kunti Kumari .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Indu Bhushan Lall Khanna .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
08/05.04.2022
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. Inspite of service of notice upon owner of the vehicle, he has not appeared.
This case is being disposed of ex-parte against him.
3. It is the claimants who approached this Court praying for enhancement of
compensation which was awarded to them vide award/judgment dated 2.9.2016
passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 270 of 2010.
4. The only grounds address before this Court by the claimants in support of
the enhancement is that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on
account of Future Prospects of the deceased and under the Conventional Head
only sum of Rs. 45,000/- has been awarded which should be Rs. 70,000/- in terms
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . So
far as other aspects are concerned, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
has accepted all the other findings in the impugned award.
5. Mr. Alok Lal, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company submits that right of recovery has been granted in favour of the
Insurance Company, thus they are entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from
the owner of the vehicle. He submits that claimants' witness i.e wife of the
deceased has stated that deceased was aged about 52 years but the Tribunal has
erroneously assessed the aged of the deceased to be 50 years.
6. After hearing the parties and considering the dispute which came before
this Court, it is not necessary to deal with all the aspects of the claim application.
The admitted fact about the validity of the Insurance Policy, the violation of terms
and conditions of the said policy, the nature and manner of accident, multiplier,
income etc. are not being dealt with. In this appeal limited ground to be decided
is as to whether claimants are entitled to any amount on account of "Future
Prospects" and what should be the amount under the "Conventional Head". This
issue has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) especially in paragraph no. 59.4
and 59.8 respectively. In view of aforesaid judgment since the deceased was aged
about 50 years, as per the post-mortem, the claimants are entitled to receive 25%
enhanced amount, over and above the compensation amount, under "Future
Prospect". Further as per the aforesaid judgment Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid to the
claimants on account of conventional head whereas only Rs. 45,000/- has been
awarded. The recalculated will be as follows :-
Rs.5000 x 12 x13= Rs.7,80,00/-
Rs.7,80,000/- -1/4=Rs.5,85,000/-
Rs.5,85,000/- + 25%=Rs.7,31,250/-
Rs.731,250 +70,000/-=Rs.8,01,250/.
7. As per this Court, the aforesaid amount is just compensation which should
be paid to the claimants.
8. Before parting, this Court is interfering with the penal interest which has
been saddled upon the Insurance Company. Without any reason the penal interest
has been saddled @ 12%, if the compensation amount is not paid within thirty
days. As per M.V Act, the statutory period of filing of appeal is 90 days, the
Tribunal should have at least waited for 90 days before directing the Insurance
Company to give 12% interest. Thus the part of order granting penal interest @
12% is set aside. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount
with 9% interest on the awarded amount which will be from the date of filing of
the claim application till the date. If the Insurance Company has paid any amount
then the balance amount, which is a consequence of this enhancement will carry
interest @ 9% from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal till the same is
paid.
9. This court has not interfered with the right of recovery.
10. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/cp2
