Jharkhand High Court
The Branch Manager vs Saraswati Devi on 9 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 481 of 2015
-----
The Branch Manager, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi.
..... Appellant.
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi
2. Sumanta Kumar Rai
3. Debanti Kumari
4. Harneet Singh .... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate.
For the claimant(s): Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate.
----
10/09.02.2022: Heard the counsel for the appellant and I have gone through the
impugned award.
2. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgment/
award dated 15.4.2015 passed by the District Judge-XII-cum- MACT Judge,
Dhanbad in T(MV) S No. 168 of 2012 .
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits
that the quantum of compensation has been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal.
He further submits that the amount of compensation, assessed by the Tribunal, is
on much higher side, as the accident had taken place in the month of April, 2008
and the family of the deceased has claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.200/- per day as he was working as mason. He further submits the wages of
a mason was not Rs.200/- per day at that time. He further submits that the
Tribunal has enhanced the compensation amount by 50% on account of future
prospect, which according to him, is incorrect. He further submits that as per the
judgment of 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, the enhancement could be at best 40% and not 50% considering the
age of the deceased as 39-40 years. This is the only ground taken by the
Insurance Company in this appeal.
4. After going through the judgment, I find that though the claimants
have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.200 per day, but the tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/- per month. Thus, the
tribunal disbelieved the submission of the claimants. Thus, I find that the ground
taken by the appellant in this appeal is not correct.
5. So far as future prospect is concerned, I find that 50% of the income
of the deceased has been enhanced on account of future prospect . The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held that the claimants
are entitled for future prospect and as per the aforesaid judgment, the claimants
in this case is entitled for 40% enhancement. Thus, grant of 50% enhancement
on account of future prospect by the Tribunal is not correct.
6. When I go through the award, I find that under the conventional
head, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, which is not
in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra). In the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Rs.70,000/- has
been paid on the aforesaid head. If the amount of compensation is recalculated
in terms of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , I find that the
amount of compensation will come to Rs.5,74,000/-. The counsel for the
appellant admits the aforesaid calculation.
7. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,60,000/-. Even if
the argument of the counsel for the appellant is accepted that on account of
future prospect, exorbitant amount has been granted then I also find that
claimant is entitled to get only Rs.14,000/- more than what has been granted by
the Tribunal.
8. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
9. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award and pay the
same to the claimants within six weeks with an additional amount of Rs.14,000/-.
10. The statutory amount, so deposited, will be refunded to the
appellant-Insurance Company.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
