Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Babita Devi on 16 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 423 of 2016
----
National Insurance Co. Ltd., represented through Sr. Divisional
Manager, B.P. Agarwalla Building, Dhansar, Bank More, Dhanbad.
... Appellant
-versus-
1. Babita Devi
2. Jyoti
3. Anjali Kumari
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are minors, represented through their mother
being natural guardian.
4. Athar Nawaj Khan
5. Ishwari Devi
6. Dhaneshwar Thakur ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate
----
11/ 16.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself on consent of
the parties.
3. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company, challenging the
Award dated 17.05.2016 passed by the District Judge XIV cum Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Case No.126 of 2015.
4. Counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum
as assessed by the Tribunal. He submits that compensation under the head of
future prospect has been awarded by increasing 50% of the compensation
amount, which is not proper. He submits that as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
versus Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimants
were entitled for an enhancement of 40% and not more than that. He further
submits that the income has been assessed on much higher side as it cannot
be expected that a labour was earning Rs.200/- per day. He further submits
that the parents are not dependent upon the deceased, as such the deduction
on account of personal expenses should have been 1/3rd and not 1/4th as
assessed by the Tribunal.
5. Since only the quantum is under challenge, I am not entering into
the other aspects of this appeal, i.e., the age of the deceased, multiplier used,
the manner of accident and the liability.
6. It is admitted that offending vehicle, i.e., BR 13G 4669, which was
a mini truck, was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The vehicle
was insured from 12th February 2014 to 11th February 2015 and the accident
had taken place on 22nd November, 2014, thus, the vehicle was duly insured. It
is not a case that any of the conditions of the policy has been violated.
7. While going through the award and the depositions, I find that it is
the case of the claimants that the deceased was 28 years and was earning
Rs.200/- per day as a labourer. This assertion made on behalf of the claimant
was not controverted by the appellant-Insurance Company while cross
examining the claimant. Nothing was extracted during cross-examination to
suggest that he was not earning the aforesaid amount. In view of the aforesaid
fact, I find no illegality in the impugned award by which the Tribunal assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month.
8. The Tribunal has awarded 50% enhancement on account of future
prospects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
has held that when the deceased is self-employed and is of less than 40
years, an enhancement of 40% has to be granted on account of future
prospects. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that 10% increase additionally has
been granted to the claimants, but, the Tribunal under the conventional head,
has granted only a sum of Rs.15,000/- whereas in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants are entitled for
a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the said head.
9. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th from the income of the deceased
on account of personal expenses. In this case, I find that the deceased has left
behind his widow and two minor children (daughters) aged about 5 years and
2 years. The deceased has also left behind his parents, father and mother,
who reside with the claimants. Both the in-laws have been made proforma
defendants before the Tribunal. Claimant Witness No.1, who is the claimant
herself, has stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law reside with her,
but, she states that father-in-law is an agriculturist. Nowhere has it been
mentioned that they were dependent upon the deceased. Thus, this Court is of
the opinion that Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of
the deceased.
10. Further, I find that the Tribunal has granted only 6% interest on
the awarded amount from the date of claim application. In opinion of this
Court, interest should have been at least 7.5%.
11. If I recalculate the compensation in terms of what has been held
above, this Court is of the opinion that the difference amount would be
approximately Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. But, if the interest component is
raised from 6% to 7.5%, hardly any difference would remain.
12. Considering the nominal difference, I am not inclined to interfere
with the award passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of filing
of this appeal, will be refunded to the Insurance Company. The Insurance
Company will recalculate the total amount along with interest and will pay the
same to the claimants within six weeks, after deducting the amount already
paid.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
