Lalit Kumar Choudhary vs Suresh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3309 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   M.A. No. 457 of 2018
                                              ----

1. Lalit Kumar Choudhary

2. Renu Choudhary --- Appellants.

-Versus-

1. Suresh Kumar

2. M/s New India Assurance Company Limited. .... Respondents.

        CORAM         :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                    -----
        For the appellant(s):       Mr. Rajiv Kr. Karan, Advocate.
        For the Insurance Co.:      Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
                                    -----

04/22.08.2022:        This appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants challenging

the part of the judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge- VII-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 149 of 2015.

2. This appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself as both parties have agreed and lower court record has already been received by this Court.

3. A very short point has been raised by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal. Counsel for the appellants is not disputing the application of multiplier, the age of the deceased so assessed, and the quantum of income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal. He is also not disputing the deduction of 50% from the income, as the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The manner of accident, involvement and identity of the offending vehicle, liability and coverage of insurance are also not under dispute. He also admits that 40% enhancement is proper considering the future prospect of the deceased. He also submits that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, under the conventional head, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- whereas, in the instant case only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. Thus from the submission of the counsel for the appellants, this Court feels that the appellants are only aggrieved with quantum, which has been awarded under the conventional head as the claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/-.

4. Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been decided that Rs.70,000/- has to be awarded under the conventional head, but in this case only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal.

5. From the arguments advanced, it is clear that the appellants have filed this appeal seeking payment of an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- under

the conventional head as only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded under the said head instead of Rs.70,000/-.

6. After going through the record, it appears that the only point in dispute is what amount the claimants are entitled to receive under the conventional head. In terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and after considering paragraph 59.8 of the said judgment, I find that the claimants are entitled to receive Rs.70,000/-, but in this case I find that only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. Thus, the grievance of the appellants is genuine.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appellants are further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/-, which the Insurance Company is directed to pay within eight weeks with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of award till the amount is paid.

8. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands disposed of.

Anu/-CP2                                                     (ANANDA SEN, J.)