Jharkhand High Court
Silwanti Samad vs Mahavir Kumar Mantri on 17 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
M.A. No. 474 of 2016
----
Silwanti Samad, wife of Nahum Samad, resident of village Tutikel Pakartoli,
P.O. and P.S. Kolebira, District -Simdega .... Appellant
-- Versus --
1.Mahavir Kumar Mantri, son of late Fateh Chand Mantri, resident of Main
Road, Gumla, P.O. and Police Station Gumla, District Gumla
2.The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor,
Prabodh Tower, S.N.Ganguli Road, Ranchi, PO -GPO, Police Station-
Kotwali, District-Ranchi .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant/Claimant :- Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For Respondent/Insurance Co. :- Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
----
11/17.02.2023 Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent/ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Although the notice was issued upon the respondent No.1,
who is the owner of the vehicle and who has been served but inspite of
that, respondent No.1 has not appeared and that is why the instant
appeal has been heard in absence of the respondent no.1.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/ Award
dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega in M.A.C.C. Case No.25 of 2014,
the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the awarded
amount.
The claim application was filed stating therein that on
20.12.2010 the deceased along with Binay Surin was going to Simdega
on Hero Honda Motorcycle No.JHO 20A/1230 and at about 1:00 p.m.
near Fikpani Mantri Bus bearing registration No.JHO1B-1585 was coming
from Rourkela side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to
which he received fatal injury and died at the spot and with respect to
that accident, Kolebira P.S.Case No.51/10 was registered and after
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the
offending vehicle under the relevant sections of the I.P.C.
Mr. Zaid Ahmad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not
providing any amount under the future prospect head. He further
submits that the age of the deceased was 25 years and in view of the
judgment rendered in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi", (2017) 16 SCC 680 it was required to be multiplied by 18,
whereas it was multiplied by 17. He further submits that the income was
considered on the lessor side and on this ground, he submits that
interference is required by this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. G.C.Jha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company submits that
the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount and the quantum
is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the award and this
petition may kindly be dismissed.
On perusal of the Award, the Court finds that the learned
Tribunal has taken the earning of the deceased for Rs.200/- per day and
total Rs.6,000/- in a month, however, in absence of any paper, the
deceased's notional income was fixed by the learned Tribunal at
Rs.3,000/- per month and the annual income was at Rs.36,000/-.
Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of 2011 (1) JLJR 182 SC wherein it has been held that if the deceased
being bachelor, his 50 % income should be treated as the personal and
living expenses and the Court finds that in that view of the matter, the
income decided by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law and no
interference is required, however, considering the age of the deceased,
the multiplier was put to 18 whereas the learned Tribunal has taken the
multiplier of 17, and in view of the "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi"(supra), it should be 18, in place of 17. In view of "National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi", the future prospect to the tune of
40% is required to be added in the Award which is lacking in the same.
Accordingly, this appeal is being allowed in the above terms
and the Award is modified to the extent, for future prospect 40 % shall
be added multiplier with 18, and accordingly, the same shall be
calculated afresh by the learned Tribunal. The difference of amount shall
be released in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the additional amount
plus interest in terms of the Award shall be released in favour of the
claimants.
The remaining amount shall be released in favour of the
appellant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order by the respondent/Insurance Company.
With the above modification in the Award, M.A.No.474 of
2016 is allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
