Jharkhand High Court
Kuldip Gagrai vs A. Subhnath Laguri on 17 August, 2022
M.A.No.207 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.207 of 2009
------
[Against the Judgment and Award dated 06.06.2009 passed in
Compensation Case No.71 of 2004 by the learned Additional District
Judge-II-cum-M.V.A.C.T. at Chaibasa]
------
1. Kuldip Gagrai, aged about 20 years, Son of Sonaram Gagrai
2. Bameya Gagrai, Minor (represented through appellant no.1-
Kuldip Gagrai), Son of Sonaram Gagrai
3. Satish Gagrai, Minor (represented through appellant no.1-
Kuldip Gagrai), Son of Sonaram Gagrai
All R/O. of village Buru Baljori, P.S. Hatgamharia, P.O.
Dumuria, Dist. Singhbhum (W).
.... .... Claimants/Appellants
Versus
1. a. Subhnath Laguri, S/O. Gono Laguri
b. Saluka Laguri, S/O Late Bikram Laguri
c. Ladura Laguri, S/O. Late Bina Laguri.
d. Dilip Singh Pat Pingua, S/O. Jogendra Pat Pingua
e. Shyam Charan Laguri, S/O Late Topey Laguri
f. Sridhar Laguri, S/O Late Narpati Laguri
g. Laxmi Kanti Birua, S/O Late Lanka Birua
h. Bhanmoti Laguri, D/O. Late Bholanath Laguri
i. Nandini Purty, W/O. Dinesh Chandra Laguri.
j. Sumitra Kunkal, D/O Rasika Kunkal
All R/O Vill- Balandia, P.O. & P.S. Hatgamharia, Singhbhum
West except (g) Laxmi Kanti Birua who resides in village
Sindrigouri, P.O. & P.S. Hatgamharia, West Singhbhum.
2. Suren Gope, S/O. Lakhan Gope, R/O Vill. & P.O. & P.S.-
Hatgamharia, West Singhbhum.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Having its Branch Office at Chaibasa) at
M.A.No.207 of 2009
Sadar Bajar, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, W. Singhbhum.
.... ... Opposite Parties/Respondents.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Basav Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court: - Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award
dated 06.06.2009 passed in Compensation Case No.71 of 2004 by the
learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-M.V.A.C.T. at Chaibasa whereby
and where under the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.3,89,000/- towards compensation in favour of the claimants/
appellants and deducted Rs.50,000/- which was paid under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act and directed payment of remaining compensation
amount i.e. Rs.3,39,000/- to the claimants/appellants by the Opposite
Party No.3- Insurance Company.
3. The brief fact of this case is that the deceased- Basanti Gagrai was
travelling by a bus which was rashly and negligently driven in excessive
speed on 01.01.2004. The said bus met with an accident by which the
deceased sustained fatal injuries. It is stated that the deceased was a
brilliant student and she passed Secondary School Examination in the
year 1995. The deceased was 23 years of age at the time of her death and it
is stated that her monthly income was Rs.4,500/- approximately which
she was earning by working as a Teacher in Shiksha Pariyojana School
and was also giving private tuition as well as she was supplementing her
income by cultivation.
4. The Opposite Party No.3- Insurance Company opposed the prayer
for compensation and that the Opposite Party No.1- the owner of the
offending bus also opposed the claim for compensation by filing written
M.A.No.207 of 2009
statement.
5. The learned tribunal, on the basis of rival pleadings, framed the
following seven issues:-
(1) Whether the claimants have cause of action of right to sue and the case
is maintainable?
(2) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by
driver of vehicle?
(3) Whether the deceased died due to motor vehicle accident?
(4) Whether the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy
for which the vehicle has been insured under the insurer?
(5) Whether the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and was
guilty for contributory negligence?
(6) Whether the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the insured
(owner) of the vehicle?
(7) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief or reliefs as
claimed by them?
6. In support of their case, the claimants altogether examined three
witnesses. The claimant No.1 is the A.W.1.
7. A.W.2- Anand Kumar Birua is the eye-witness of the occurrence. He
was also travelling in the same offending bus.
8. A.W.3- Jamuna Doraiburu has stated that the deceased was earning
Rs.3,000/- per month.
9. In support of their case, the claimants besides the oral testimony
also proved the relevant documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 5.
10. The learned tribunal took up issue Nos. 2, 3 and 5 together and after
considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle and the deceased-Basanti Gagrai died due to that
accident and there is no evidence in the record to establish that the
deceased-Basanti Gagrai was responsible for the accident. So, there is no
contributory negligence on her part and decided issue Nos.2, 3 and 5 in
favour of the claimants.
11. The learned tribunal, thereafter took up issue No.4 and came to the
conclusion that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms
and conditions of the policy for which the vehicle was insured.
12. In respect of issue No.7, the learned tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- and after deducting one-third of
M.A.No.207 of 2009
her income towards her personal expenses; applied the multiplier of 16
and added Rs.5,000/- under the conventional head and came to total
compensation of Rs.3,89,000/-
13. The tribunal lastly took up issue No.6 and as the vehicle was
insured with the Insurance Company; directed the Insurance Company to
pay the compensation amount with right to recover the amount paid to
the claimants from the owner and driver of the offending bus.
14. Mr. A. K. Das assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini- learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants submits that though the appellants have raised
several grounds but the appellants confine their arguments only to the
following grounds for enhancement of the compensation amount:-
(a) As undisputedly, the deceased was aged 23 years of age at the
time of her death and in view of settled principle of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma
(Smt) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 18 ought to have
been applied by the tribunal instead of multiplier of 16.
(b) In view of principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, as the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of her
death, 40% of her income should have been added towards
future prospects.
(c) Rs.70,000/- should have been awarded under conventional
head and interest from the date of filing of the claim petition
ought to have been granted.
(d) The tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the
deceased to be Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,000/-.
(e) The tribunal erred by not awarding interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition; without assigning any reason hence
interest upon the compensation amount from the date of filing
of the petition be also awarded by way of modification of the
impugned judgment and award.
M.A.No.207 of 2009
Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be
modified by enhancing the amount of compensation.
15. Mr. Basav Chatterjee- learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and
Mr. J.N. Upadhyay on the instructions of Mr. Kaustav Panda on the other
hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submit that the
compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act envisages just
compensation and not a bounty and the amount of compensation
awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, hence, the same need not to
be interfered with and this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed.
16. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination
which crop up for determination in this appeal is:-
"Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal
requires to be enhanced?"
17. So far as the contention of the claimants/appellants for assessing
the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- is concerned, perusal
of the record reveals that the claimants have not filed any document to
show that the deceased was working in Shiksha Pariyojana School. The
A.W.3 has categorically stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/-
per month. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the assessment of the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- is
reasonable and proper. Hence, this contention of the appellants/claimants
has no merit. Therefore, this Court does want to interfere with the
assessment of the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- as made by the
tribunal.
18. In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra), as undisputedly the deceased
was aged 23 years at the time of her death so the multiplier of 18 ought to
have been applied by the tribunal and the tribunal has certainly erred by
applying the multiplier of 16. Hence, this Court is of the considered view
that the multiplier of 18 is to be applied in the facts of the case.
19. In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
M.A.No.207 of 2009
Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), 40% of the income of the deceased is to be
added towards future prospects and Rs.70,000/- be granted under the
conventional heads.
20. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased after adding 40% of her
income towards future prospects comes out to Rs.4,200/- and deducting
one-third of her income towards her personal expenses, the remaining
amount comes out to Rs.2,800/- per month i.e. Rs.33,600/- per annum.
The amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 18 comes out
to Rs.6,04,800/- and adding Rs.70,000/- towards future prospects, the
total amount comes out to Rs.6,74,800/-.
21. Since no reason has been assigned by the tribunal for not awarding
interest on the compensation amount, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the same is an error committed by the tribunal and this is a fit
case where the claimants should be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment
of the entire amount less the amount, if any, already paid.
22. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that the quantum of compensation is to be enhanced to
Rs.6,74,800/- less the amount, if any, already paid, with simple interest
thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
till the date of actual payment and the said compensation amount with
interest, is to be paid by the Insurance Company within three months
from the date of this judgment.
23. The Insurance Company will have the right to recover the
compensation amount paid to the claimants from the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle as ordered by the tribunal in the impugned
judgment and award and the said portion of the judgment and award is
not interfered with by this court.
24. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly.
25. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment
and award passed by the tribunal is modified by directing the respondent
No.3- Insurance Company to pay Rs.6,74,800/- less the amount, if any,
already paid to the claimants-appellants with simple interest thereon @
6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date
M.A.No.207 of 2009
of actual payment within three months from the date of this judgment.
26. The impugned judgment and award is modified to aforesaid extent
only.
27. This appeal is allowed on contest but in the circumstances without
any cost.
28. Let a copy this Judgment be sent back to the tribunal concerned
forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of August, 2022
AFR/ Animesh
