Jharkhand High Court
Hadis Ansari @ Sheik Hadis Ansari vs Tapan Kumar Dey on 3 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 194 of 2009
1. Hadis Ansari @ Sheik Hadis Ansari S/o Sheik Tilla @ Sheik Shahdul.
2. Saliman Khatoon @ Munnu Khatoon w/o Sheik Hadis Ansari.
3. Sufeda Khatoon W/o Late Ziaul Ansari @ Jaul Ansari
4. Waris Ansari S/o Late Ziaul Ansari
5. Juhi Parween @ Rani Khatoon D/o Late Ziaul Ansari
All are Resident of - Village - Childag, Post-childag P.S-Argora,
District- Ranchi.
..... ..... Appellants
Versus
1. Tapan Kumar Dey S/o Debendra Nath Dey
475/1, New Loco Colony, Post- Bilaspur GPO-1
P.S. Bilaspur Kotwali, District- Bilaspur
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
City Division No.1 ,Ved Narayan Bhawan,
Kutchery Road, Ranchi-834001,District- Ranchi
At present
S.N. Ganguly Road
P.S. Kotwali , Post- Ranchi-834001
District- Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
CAV ON 08. 04.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 03 .08. 2022
1. The claimants have preferred the appeal for enhancement of
compensation awarded under section 166 of the M.V. Act by the, Motor
Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case no 116 of
1999.
2. As per the claim case the deceased Ziaul Ansari @ Jaul Ansari died in
a motor vehicle accident on 27.4.1999 involving truck no. MP-26D-1655
when he was returning home on a scooter. The accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the truck. The deceased was aged about 28 years
with an income of Rs 5000/- per month as a sales man and besides this he was
also doing hosiery work business from where he was earning Rs 2500/- per
month and he was the only earning member of his family.
3. The owner and insurer of the vehicle were impleaded as O.P. No. 1& 2,
who have appeared and contested the claim by filing writing statement.
4. Learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- by taking
income of the deceased to be Rs.2000/- per month and multiplier of 17
applicable for the age group of 30-35 years against the O.P No 2 The Oriental
Insurance co. Ltd .
5. Judgment and award of compensation has been assailed on the ground
that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.5000/- as per evidence. but the
compensation has been computed on monthly income of Rs.2000/-. It also
argued that the correct multiplier has not been taken for awarding the
compensation.
6. On plain reading of the claim application it appears that the monthly
income of the deceased has been claimed to be Rs.5,000/- but it has not been
stated as to what was the occupation of the deceased.
7. No documentary evidence has been led in support of the occupation or
income of the deceased. The case rests on the oral evidence bereft of any
supporting pleadings in the claim application. Altogether four witnesses have
been examined on behalf of the claimants and out of them PW2, PW3 and
PW4 have deposed about the occupation and income of the deceased. PW 2
the brother of the deceased has stated in his examination-in-chief that
deceased was earning Rs 3000 monthly income as salesman from a cloth shop
and Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- by the sale of hosiery items. PW 3 is the widow
of the deceased she has also stated about the income of the deceased on the
same line. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she did not know the
name of the shop where her husband was working as a salesman. She has
further deposed that before the marriage he used to take cloth for sale. On the
point of income PW 4 has deposed that he was working at Ranchi in Jai Mata
Di and used to go to his work daily in the morning at 9-10 and returned at
6.30-7.00 in the evening. He was educated up to class eight.
8. What can be inferred from these evidences is that there is no consistent
case about the nature of the occupation or income of the deceased. Story of
income from hosiery business appears to be developed as afterthought.
Nevertheless, it can be inferred that he was not sitting idle but working and
earning his livelihood to support his family. In assessment of income the
Tribunal is not bound to accept any or all evidence that comes on record, but
the materials have to pass judicial scrutiny on the principle of appreciation of
evidence considering the natural course of human conduct and overall facts
and circumstance of the case.
9. From the level of education of the deceased and other evidence on
record it would be just and reasonable to infer an income of Rs.3,000/- per
month.
10. In the post-mortem examination report age of the decease has been
assessed to be 30 years. Taking Rs 3000/-as monthly income and 30 years as
his age, the final compensation will work out as under:
Annual Income Rs.3,000x12 Rs.36,000/-
Annual dependency after deducting Rs.28,800/-
1/5th on the living and personal
expenses of the deceased
Loss of dependency by taking a Rs.28,800 x 17 = Rs.4,89,600
multiplier of 17 applicable to the age
group of 30 years.
Future Prospect @ 40% Rs.1,95,840
Conventional head Rs.77,000
Total Rs.7,62,440
The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,62,440 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the compensation
amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant
Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make
payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this
order. The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants in the
manner given below:
A. 50% of the total compensation amount to be paid to Claimant no.3 the
widow of the deceased.
B. 20% of the compensation amount to be paid to each of the claimant
nos.4 and 5 jointly with claimant no.3.
C. 10% of the compensation amount jointly to claimant no.1 and 2.
Appeal is allowed as at above.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 3rd August, 2022
NAFR / AKT
