Jharkhand High Court
Saraswati Hansda vs Manjeet Singh on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 416 of 2018
----
Saraswati Hansda
Khusi Hansda... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Manjeet Singh
2. Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Ampa Hansda
4. Mali Hansda.... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate.
For Insurance Co.: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate.
-----
08/06.07.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In this appeal, the claimants-appellants have prayed for
enhancement of compensation amount so awarded in Compensation Case No.
117/2015 by the District Judge-III-cum-MVACT, Jamshedpur vide award dated
30.10.2017.
2. Considering the issue involved in this appeal and also in view of the
fact that the lower court is available, I am disposing this appeal at this stage
itself.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while assessing the
amount of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
deceased to be Rs.14,000/- per month which is erroneous and against the
documentary evidence, which is on record. As per him, the deceased was an
employer of TATA Motors Limited and his salary certificates for the entire year
were exhibited, which suggest that his monthly take home salary cannot be less
than Rs.25,000/-, thus his annual income should be calculated on the monthly
income of RS.25,000/- and thereafter the Tribunal should have been proceeded
to quantify the amount of compensation taking into consideration the direction
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He fairly submits
that the Tribunal has enhanced the amount of compensation by 50% on account
of future prospect, which, in fact, should be 40%. He further submits that there
were four dependents of the deceased, thus the deduction should be 1/4 th and
not 1/3rd.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,000/- per
month as his salary certificate shows several allowances were paid, which
cannot be taken note of while computing the amount of compensation. He
further submits that under the conventional head also as sum of Rs.1,30,000/-
has been paid, which is more than what has been directed to be paid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
5. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was an employee of
TATA Motors Limited. The death of the deceased in a Motor accident is not
disputed. The fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH 05 AM
7641 was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company is also not disputed.
There is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The
deceased died leaving behind his wife and a minor daughter, who are the
appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and his old parents, who are the performa respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 before me. Also, the manner in which the accident occurred, is not
disputed.
6. The only issue, to be decided is what would be the salary of the
deceased. After assessing the same, the compensation should be recalculated
strictly in terms of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). It has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while assessing the monthly income of a
deceased the gross income less the income tax should be considered.
Considering the said principle, I have gone through the documentary evidence,
which is on record. The pay slips of the deceased are on record, which is from
March 2014 to March-2015. These pay slips were exhibited as Exts. 1 to 1/12.
For the purpose of calculating the income, I am not considered the pay slips for
the period February and March- 2015 because the deceased died on 8 th
February 2015, thus he did not work in the entire month of February 2015.
Further the pay slips for the months of February 2015 and March 2015 shows
some monetary benefits, which were given due to death of the deceased in the
accident. Considering the other pay slips and taking average of the same, I find
that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.20,500/- (approx.).
7. From the aforesaid amount, income tax has to be deducted, thus the
monthly salary of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.18,450/-. Thus, I come to
a conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of
calculating just compensation would be Rs.18,450/-. Further, I find that there
were dependents of the deceased, except the wife and minor daughter, the
parents of the deceased are there. Thus deduction on account of personal
expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd.
8. Now the amount of compensation needs to be re-calculated, which
is as follows:-
Rs.18,450 x 12 x 17 (multiplier)= Rs.37,63,800/-
Rs.37,63,800-Rs.9,40,950 (personal expenses)= Rs.28,22,850/-
Rs.28,22,850/- + Rs.11,29,140 (future prospect)= Rs.39,51,990/-
Rs.39,51,990 + Rs.70,000 (Conventional Head)= Rs.40,21,990/-
Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.40,21,990/-
(forty lakh twenty one thousand nine hundred ninety). The Tribunal has
already awarded Rs.29,86,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for an
additional amount of Rs. 10,35,990/-
This balance amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum from
8.1.2019 when the appellants removed the office defects in this appeal.
75% of the enhanced amount should be paid to the appellant No. 1
and rest 25% of the enhanced amount should be paid to respondent No. 4, who
is the mother of the deceased.
The amount should be paid to the claimants, as directed above,
within ten (10) weeks from today.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands
allowed.
Anu/-CP.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
