Jharkhand High Court
Kajal Devi & Others vs Sikandar Singh & Another on 27 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 281 of 2018
........
Kajal Devi & Others .... ..... Appellants
Versus
Sikandar Singh & Another .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the parties have no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
........
05/27.04.2023.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan
and learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company, Mr.
Pratyush Kumar.
The appellants / claimants namely, (1) Kajal Devi, wife of
Late Rajen Diggar, (2) Anjana Devi, wife of Late Kali Diggar and
(3) Diwakar Diggar, son of Late Rajen Diggar @ Rajendra Diggar
have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated
01.02.2018 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Presiding
Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bokaro in
Motor Accident Claims Case No.30/2014, whereby the claimants
have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,39,000/-
without interest, but if the Insurance Company fails to indemnify the
award within one month, the Insurance Company shall pay penal
interest @ 6% per annum from the passing of the order till its
realization.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has
submitted, that the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic and the
claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.
12,000/- per month, for which consistent evidence has been brought
on record that deceased was earning Rs. 300-400/- per day. Apart
from that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi &
Others Vs. Jivrail Mian & Others, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724
SC, in absence of any evidence, has considered the income of the
deceased, who was Carpenter and lost his life on 02.01.2001, to be
Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas in the present case, the unfortunate
accident took place on 23.12.2013 and there is consistent oral
evidence with regard to income of the deceased that deceased was
earning Rs. 300-400/- per day, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly
considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month,
which may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
the future prospect of the deceased has not been considered, which
ought to have been 40% as the deceased was aged about 22 years in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.4).
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that
the learned Tribunal, without assigning any reason, has not granted
interest from the date of filing of claim application, which was filed
in the year 2014 and has only granted interest @ 6% per annum, if
the awarded amount is not paid to the claimants within one month
from the date of award i.e. 01.02.2018, which may also be modified.
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company, Mr.
Pratyush Kumar has submitted, that under the conventional head,
amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been paid, which ought to have been
Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/-
for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate in view of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.8).
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company,
has thus submitted, that in such circumstances, this Court may not
interfere with the impugned award.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking
into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the deceased
Rajen Diggar died in a motor accident on 23.12.2013 at 7:00 p.m.
when a Scorpio bearing registration no. JH-10AM 2979 dashed
him, for which Bermo P.S. Case No. 231/2013 has been registered
against the owner of the offending vehicle. After investigation, the
police has submitted the charge sheet. The offending vehicle was
duly insured with M/s National Insurance Company Limited vide
Insurance Policy No. 17030031 / 13 / 6100007666 valid for the
period from 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014. Thus, it appears that on the
date of accident i.e. 23.12.2013, the vehicle was duly insured.
It appears that the owner of the offending vehicle has
appeared before the learned Tribunal and has filed his written
statement.
From perusal of the impugned award and after hearing the
parties, it appears that there is no reasoning to consider the income
of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal
when there was consistent oral evidence of the witnesses that the
deceased was earning Rs. 300-400/- per day.
In the case of Chameli Devi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has considered the income of a Carpenter, who lost his life on
02.01.2001, to be Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, for better appreciation, it
would be proper for this Court to consider the income of the
deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- per month, who lost his life on
23.12.2013 i.e. after 12 years of death of bread earner of Chameli
Devi & Others, as such, this Court considers the income of the
deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the fresh calculation is as follows:-
Annual Income Rs. 10,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,20,000/-
40% future prospect as deceased Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 48,000/-
was aged about 22 Years = Rs. 1,68,000/-
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.4)
[(2017) 16 SCC 680]
1/3rd deduction towards personal Rs. 1,68,000/- x 1/3 = Rs. 56,000/-
and living expenses
Sarla Verma (Para-30)
[(2009) 6 SCC 121]
Total Income Rs. 1,68,000/- - Rs. 56,000/-
= Rs. 1,12,000/-
Multiplier of 18 (as the deceased Rs. 1,12,000/- x 18 = Rs. 20,16,000/-
was in the age group of 21-25
years) Sarla Verma (Para-42)
Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- as loss of
Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) estate, Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium
and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses.
Total Compensation Amount Rs. 20,16,000/- + Rs. 70,000/-
= Rs. 20,86,000/-
The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the enhanced
amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim application till realization of the same, in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and
Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008
(12) SCC 208.
However, the amount, if already paid under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act shall be deducted. The balance amount shall
be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks
from today in the account of the appellants of any nationalized
bank.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to furnish the
account number of the appellants / claimants of any nationalized
bank before the learned Tribunal or learned Executing Court or to
the Insurance Company within two weeks, so as to indemnify the
award.
Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is allowed.
Let the L.C.R. be sent down.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
