Jharkhand High Court
Pramila Devi vs Sunil Rungta on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 258 of 2015
------
1. Pramila Devi w/o Late Satyendra Singh
2. Pramila Devi w/o Banke Singh
3. Ankit Kumar
4. Onkar Kumar .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sunil Rungta
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
07/28.06.2022
Heard the parties.
2. By filing this appeal, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of
compensation amount awarded to them vide order dated 27.08.2014, passed by
District Judge-II-cum-Additional Claim Tribunal Chatra, in Claim Case No. 16 of
2011.
3. Since Lower Court Record is before me and the parties have appeared
before this Court and are ready for disposal of this appeal, I am disposing of this
appeal at this stage itself.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that deceased was a
driver in Rungta Project Ltd. and was earning Rs.8000/- per month but the
Tribunal without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased to be
Rs.3000/- per month. He submits that this assessment is on much lower side,
which normally is considered as notional income when a deceased was
unemployed. In the instant case there is evidence that deceased was employed and
thus Rs.3000/- per month as income of the deceased could not have been assessed,
more so, when he was maintaining a family. He further submits that under
conventional head claimants are entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- , but the Tribunal
has only awarded Rs.35,000/- He further submits that deduction under personal
expenses has wrongly been assessed as 1/3 which should have been ¼.These are
the only ground taken by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in
respect of enhancement of the compensation.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company opposes the prayer
and submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of
Rs.3000/- per month as no paper related to income to the deceased has been filed
by the claimants.
Further Insurance Company submits that Future Prospects which has been granted
to the claimants is also not in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as the Tribunal has awarded 50% as 'Future
Prospect', which should have been 40%.
6. Since the only dispute between the parties is in respect of quantum, I am
not entering into the other aspect which has not been argued in this case.
7. Claimants have examined four witnesses. C.W 1 is Pramila Devi who is
the wife of the deceased. She stated about the accident and thereafter in paragraph
no.9 of the deposition, she stated that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per
month and Rs. 50 per day for fooding as he was working in Rungta Project Ltd.
in which he was a driver. C.W.2 is Arvind Kumar Mishra who also stated that the
deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month as well as some money for fooding as
he was working in Rungta Project Ltd. as a driver. Similar is the statement of the
other witnesses. Though these witnesses were cross-examined but nothing
adverse could be extracted from them. Thus from the evidence of the witness it is
quite clear that the deceased was not unemployed and was working in the Rungta
Project Ltd. as a driver. The witnesses have stated that deceased was earning
Rs.8000/- per month. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that the deceased was
not unemployed rather he was employed under an employer.
8. When the deceased was employed, his monthly income could not have
been fixed at Rs.3000/- per month, more so, when he was maintaining a family.
Thus, this Court feels that a sum of Rs.6000/- per month must be the income of
the deceased. Since the deceased was employed, as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra)
claimants are entitled for an enhancement of 40% and not 50%, on account of
'Future Prospect' as the deceased was aged about 30 years. Claimants are also
entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/-, under conventional head. On account of
dependency deduction should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vrs Delhi
Transport Corporation & others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 considering the
dependant family members.
Thus on quantification the amount of compensation will be as follows:-
Rs.6000/- X 12 X17 (multiplier)= Rs.12,24,000/-
Rs. 12,24,000/- - 1/4 (dependency) = Rs.9,18,000/-
Rs. 9,18,000+40% (future prospects) = Rs.12,85,200/-
Rs. 12,85,200/- +Rs.70,000/-(conventional head)= Rs.13,55,200/-
9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,47,000/-, thus the claimants are
further entitled to the balance amount of Rs.7,08,200/-. The balance amount will
carry interest @ 7% per annum from 19.9.2018, i.e when this Court directed to
issue notice upon the respondents, till the balance amount is paid.
10. Accordingly this appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and the
quantum is thus modified.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/cp2
