Jharkhand High Court
Laddu Lal Chaudhary vs Kinkar Mandal on 26 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 706 of 2017
----
1. Laddu Lal Chaudhary
2. Anita Devi.
3. Kanti Kumari
4. Amit Kumar
5. Dipti Kumari
6. Sumit Kumar.. Appellants
Versus
1. Kinkar Mandal
2. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal
3. Shreeram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Kamruddin Ansari
5. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad.
6. Rajesh Kumhar
7. Ajay Kumar Barnwal... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----
For the appellants: Mr. Rajiv Karan, Advocate.
For respondent No. 3: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate.
For respondent No. 5: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
----
08/26.07.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
2. Though the owners of both the vehicles have appeared by filing
Vakalatnama, but none appeared to assist this Court.
3. The appellants have filed this appeal praying therein for enhancement
of amount of compensation, which has been awarded vide Award dated 24.6.2017,
passed by the learned District Judge-XIII-cum-MVACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit
No. 63/2012.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that his clients has not
received additional compensation considering the future prospect, as directed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He, however, admits that
additional amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid to the claimants under the
conventional head. This is the only ground, he urges while pressing this appeal.
5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Santosh
Kumar, counsel for respondent No. 5 submit that the right of recovery has been
given to their respective clients and after going through the impugned award, they
admit that the Tribunal has not awarded enhancement of compensation on account
of future prospect. They further submit that since the right of recovery has been
given, if any amount is enhanced, they can recover the same from the owner of the
vehicles.
6. Considering the limited grounds in this appeal and since the lower court
records is also available, I am disposing of this appeal at the stage itself.
7. The manner in which the accident had occurred, the involvements of
the vehicles, the fact that both the vehicles were insured with their respective
Insurance Companies have not been questioned. There was violation of the
condition of the policy has been held by the Tribunal, which issue is also not under
challenge. The only point, which is to be decided is as to whether the claimants are
entitled for enhancement of compensation considering future prospect.
8. After going through the award, I find that the Tribunal has assessed the
income of deceased, who was aged about 18 years and was unmarried, to be
Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal held that she was
imparting tuition to several students and was earning the aforesaid amount. This
finding of fact has not been challenged by either by the Insurance Company or the
owner of the vehicles. Thus, I am not interfering with the same.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has
held that the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced considering the age of
the deceased and the nature of employment. In case of self employment, as per the
said judgment, in this case, enhancement should be by 40%.
10. Admittedly, from the impugned award, I find that no compensation has
been awarded on considering future prospect. Considering the age of the deceased,
who was 18 years at the time of accident, and also in view of judgment rendered in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the amount of compensation needs to be
enhanced by 40%, which comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. Further I find that under the
conventional head, Rs.80,000/- has been awarded in place of Rs.70,000/-, thus this
excess amount needs to be adjusted.
11. Thus, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to further amount of
Rs.2,06,000/- (two lakh six thousand) considering future prospect. This amount i.e.
Rs.2,06,000/- will carry interest @ 7% per annum from 1 st September, 2019 i.e. the
date when the appellants have removed the office defects, which were in the memo
of appeal.
12. It is expected that the said amount along with interest will be paid in
equal proportion by both the Insurance Companies to the claimants within eight
weeks from today.
13. The order in relation to right of recovery and the conditions mentioned
therein is not interfered with by this Court, which will be applicable to this
enhancement also.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands
disposed of.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
