Jharkhand High Court
Suman Chirania vs M/S Grand Logistics on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 213 of 2019
.....
1. Suman Chirania
2. Kusum Jalan .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. M/S Grand Logistics, C/o, 100 Narang Colong, PO & PS Janak Puri, Dist.
Janakpuri, Delhi
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
3. Sakshi Jain
4. Kushi Jalan
5. Ritik Jasan .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner(S) : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
------
06/Reserved on 04.01.2022 Pronounce on:6 /12 /2022
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation as awarded to them vide award dated 10.09.2018 passed by the
District Judge-I, Jamshedpur in MAC Case No. 196 of 2016.
3. The case arises out of motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on
27.04.2016, when the deceased Anand Jalan, being the driver cum owner was
going to Chadil from Chakulia through Xilo Car bearing Registration No. JH 06D
5518. When they reached near Yadav Hotel on NH 33, one container bearing
Registration No. HR 55M 3099, which was coming from Baheragora being
driven in high speed, rashly and negligently, dashed the said car and due to the
above accident the said car was thrown away from the road flank and Anand Jalan,
the driver cum owner received grievous multiple injuries. Anand Jalan was
brought to the Dhalbhumgarh hospital where the doctor of said hospital declared
him dead. As the incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle, the claim application was filed.
4. The owner of the truck appeared and filed written statement. It was
submitted that the accident had not been caused by his vehilce. He had taken a
plea that the vehicle was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. It was submitted that the claim of compensation of Rs. 51,60,566/-
is highly exaggerated, fanciful and imaginary. It was submitted that the owner of
the truck is not liable to pay the said amount or its portion to the applicants as the
vehicle was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company.
5. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement, taking
several preliminary objection inter-alia that the instant claim is not maintainable
in present form, the claim is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary
parties and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
They admitted that the vehicle was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd. It was submitted that driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and
further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such Driving Licence. They also
raised questions regarding permit & non adherence of traffic rules. It was
submitted that the Insurance Company is not aware and denies that the deceased
was aged about 36 years and used to earn a sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month from
business.
6. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidences the Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.
51,60,566/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this
claim case till payment.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the tribunal
has committed a grave error in not considering the income tax return of financial
year 2014-2015 on the ground that it was filed after the death of the deceased but
in fact the income tax return of the financial year of 2014-2015 was filed on
28.3.2016 and deceased died on 27.4.2016. He further submits that 12% p.a
interest should have been awarded instead of 6% p.a interest.
8. Counsel for the insurance company submits that the amount has correctly
been assessed. He submits that there is no scope of interference in the aforesaid
award.
9. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, claiming for enhancement
of compensation. From the submission of the parties, I find that Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal against this award.
10. Thus only issue which has to be decided is whether the amount of
compensation has been correctly quantified or not.
11. To assess the income of the deceased, I find that the Income Tax Return
has been filed by the claimants. The return for the year 2015-2016 suggests that
the total income of the deceased was Rs.5,89,420/- per year.
The total income for the year 2014-2015 is around more than Rs.3,00,000/- a year.
Be it noted that deceased died on 27.4.2016.
12. So far as oral evidence is concerned P.W1 claimants witness no.1 Suman
Chirania who is the wife of the deceased stated that the deceased was in business
of transport and motor parts and was earning Rs.70,000/- per month and was aged
about 36 years. She claimed Rs.1,56,80,000/- as compensation. Neither the owner
of the offending vehicle nor the Insurance Company had cross-examined this
witness on the point of income of the deceased. Claimant witness no.2 Vishnu
Garg is an Income Tax practitioner. He exhibited the Income Tax documents. He
stated that for the year 2014-2015 the income of the deceased was Rs.3,72,935/-,
for the year 2015-2016 Rs.7,49,080/- and for the year 2016-2017 Rs.8,97,600/-.
The returns were duly exhibited by him. In cross-examination he stated that after
the death of the husband of claimant no.1, the returns were filed by the heirs of
the deceased and he denies the suggestion that to claim a higher amount of
compensation, the returns were inflated. He stated that he is filing the returns of
the deceased since last 6 to 7 years and can also produce the returns of the year
2012-2013 and 2013-2014. These are only materials to assess the income of the
deceased.
13. The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased only considered
the Income Tax Return of one financial year 2014-2015 where his income was
shown as Rs.3,72,935/- and concluded the same is to be considered for the
purpose of calculation of compensation. When Income Tax Returns of three
consecutive years were placed before the court, it was not proper for the Tribunal
to only take into consideration one of the return that too which is the lowest. The
process adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. As per the oral evidence and the
documentary evidence the three years income, as per the return is for the year
2014-2015 Rs.3,72,935/-, for the year 2015-2016 Rs.7,49,080/- and for the year
2016-2017 Rs.8,97,600/-. There is a gradual increase of the income in every year.
The fact that the deceased was a business man is also not doubted as there is
nothing in the cross-examination to suggest any doubt. Thus in view what has
been held above, I am of the opinion that the average of three years income should
have been considered for the purpose of calculation of income of the deceased.
The average will be Rs. 6,73,205/-.
14. The deceased is self-employed and is less than 40 years, thus claimants
are entitled for additional enhancement of 40% on account of "Future Prospect".
15. So far as multiplier is concerned it would be 15 as per 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. In view of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited (Supra) the claimants are also entitled to receive Rs.70,000/-
under conventional head. Thus the amount of compensation needs to be
recalculated as follows:-
Annual Income-Rs.6,73,205/- X 15 (multiplier)= Rs.1,00,98,075/-
Rs. 1,00,98,075/- X ¼ (Dependent) = Rs. 75,73,556/-
Rs. 75,73,556/- X40% (Future Prospect) = Rs.1,06,02,978/-
Rs. 1,06,02,978/- +Rs.70,000/- = Rs.1,06,72,978/-
16. In view what has been held above, the claimants are entitled to get
Rs. 1,06,72,978/- as compensation. They have already been paid on amount of Rs.
51,60,566/-. The balance of Rs. 55,12,412/- should be paid to the claimants with
the interest of @ 7 % per annum from today till the same is paid.
17. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Thus the instant
miscellaneous appeal stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
