Sumi Devi @ Somi Devi Wife Of Late ... vs Anil Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 811 Jhar

                                      1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     M.A. No. 171 of 2016
1. Sumi Devi @ Somi Devi wife of late Sheolal Oraon
2. Ishwar Kumar son of late Sheolal Oraon
3. Anjani Kumari (minor) daughter of late Sheolal Oraon
4. Charku Kumar (Minor), son of late Sheolal Oraon
5. Praveen Kumar (Minor) son of late Sheolal Oraon
6. Mahabir Oraon son of late Sukhram Oraon
7. Lalmain Orain wife of Sri Mahabir Oraon
   (Appellant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are minor, appellant no. 2 attains majority during
   pendency of the case. Minor sons and daughter i.e. appellant no. 3, 4 and 5 are
   represented through their mother and natural guardian the appellant no. 1 Sumi
   Devi @ somi Deiv
       All resident of village Sarango Mahanpur, P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla,
       Jharkhand                                            ........ Claimants
                                 Versus
1. Anil Kumar, son of Sri Surendra Prasad, resident of Muhalla Sanjay Gandhi Path,
   Palmerganj, Lohardaga, P.S. and District-Lohardaga, (owner of Truck bearing
   Registration No. BPV 8503)
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Palkot Road, Gumla, P.S. and District Gumla
   having branch office situated at Mohalla Palmerganj, Hotel Novelty, P.S. and
   District Lohardaga (Insurer of Truck bearing Registration No. BPV 8503). Now
   Branch Office situated at B.S. Market Building, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeo
   Nagar, District-Ranchi
3. M/s Auto World, Incharge Sri Mahli Sahu, son of Chamar Sahu, Court Road,
   Lohardaga, P.S. and District-Lohardaga (Owner of Truck bearing Registration No.
   BR 14 7531)
4. National Insurance Company Limited, Lohardaga, Branch at Palmerganj, Hotel
   Novelty, P.S. and District Lohardaga (Insurer of Truck bearing Registration No. BR
   14 7531). Now Branch Office situated at B.S. Market Building, Ratu Road, Ranchi,
   P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi
5. (1) Girdhari Lal Sarraf
   (2). Uday Lal Sarraf
   (3).Sanjay Kumar Sarraf
   (4). Deepak Kumar Sarraf
   No. 5 (1) to 5(4) sons of late Shyam Sunder Saraff, substituted and amended vide
   order dated 19.02.2013, resident of Upper Bazar, Lohardaga, P.S. and District-
   Lohardaga (owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 42G 4236)
6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Lohardaga Branch, Hotel Novelty Palmerganj
   Chowk, P.S. and District-Lohardaga (insurer of vehicle no. BR 42G 4236)
                                           ........... Respondents/Opposite Parties

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Appellants          : Mrs. Priyanka Boby, Amicus Curiae
For the Resp. No.1          : Mr. Jay Mohan Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 4 : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate

For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 6         : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
17/Dated: 21/02/2023

It appears from the record that Mrs. Suchitra Pandey, was appointed

by the JHALSA on behalf of the claimants. Record further suggests that on last 2-

3 dates Mrs. Suchitra Pandey has not appeared in this matter. Accordingly, Mrs.

Priyanka Boby, present in the court, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the

court on behalf of claimants.

2. Heard Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned amicus curiae appearing for the

appellants/claimants, Mr. Jay Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1

Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4, Mr. Rajesh Kumar

Mahtha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondent no. 6.

3. Aggrieved with award dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned District

Judge-II-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Claim

Case No. 25/2008, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal for

enhancement of the awarded amount.

4. Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned amicus curiae appearing for the claimants

submits that on 30.04.2006 at about 3.00 P.M. one Bablu Khan in injured condition

gave a fardbeyan before a police officer of Senha P.S. at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga

stating therein that the same day at about 12 O'clock the informant alongwith seven

other persons including a woman have boarded on a truck bearing Registration No. BR

14 7531 and were travelling from Lohardaga to Ghagra. The aforesaid truck was being

driven by its driver in very rash and negligent manner and when the said truck

reached near Bagraon Chimni Bhatta all of a sudden one another truck bearing

Registration No. BR 42G 4236 which was coming towards Ghagra and it was driven by

its driver with rash and negligent manner and dashed the truck no. BR 14-7531 due to

which the empty truck no. BR 14-7531 turned over towards western direction in the

meantime one another truck bearing Registration No. BVP 8503 came with rash and

negligent manner and dashed the empty truck no. BR. 14-7531, which resulted the

person boarded in the truck sustained grievous injuries and two persons died on spot

and rest injured persons were taken to Lohardaga Sadar Hospital whereon one person

died and remaining injured persons were referred and sent to RIMS, Hospital Ranchi.

She further submits that in the said accident three persons died and rest persons

received serious injuries for that F.I.R. was registered and claim application was filed.

She submits that learned tribunal has not calculated the amount in correct

perspective. She further submits that future prospect has not been added in the

awarded amount in terms of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

5. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 -

National Insurance Company Limited submits that awarded amount has already been

satisfied by the Insurance Company. He submits that there is no illegality in the

awarded amount.

6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6-the Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd submits that awarded amount has already been satisfied by the

Insurance Company. He submits that there is no illegality in the award and no

interference is required by this Court.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3

submits that Owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 has not satisfied

the awarded amount.

8. On query by this Court as to whether the owner of the said vehicle has

preferred any appeal or not, Mr. Mahtha, fairly submits that the owner has not

preferred any appeal.

9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the

Court has gone through the award and finds that the learned tribunal framed eight

issues to decide the claim application. While deciding Issue No. V with regard to

violation of policy and valid premium, the learned tribunal has held that so far as two

vehicles are concerned they were insured by the two different Insurance Companies

and there was no violation on behalf of two trucks and accordingly, Insurance

Company were directed to pay the amount in question. So far as owner of truck

bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 is concerned, the learned tribunal has given

clear cut finding about the violation of terms and condition of policy and

accordingly, the owner of said truck was directed to pay compensation in terms of

award. Thus, the court finds that so far as deciding issue no. V, there is no

illegality in the judgment of the learned tribunal. The Court has gone through the

award particularly the calculation which is the main subject matter of this appeal

which has been filed for enhancement and finds that the learned tribunal has

calculated the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- and

admittedly the deceased were the labourers and their monthly income was

claimed to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-. The learned tribunal after giving reasons has

considered the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-, the

court finds that there is no illegality, so far as assessing the income of the

deceased.

10. Further it appears that there are dependency of seven persons and in

that view of the matter in place of 1/4th deduction on the account of personal

expenses is required to be 1/5th deduction in view of judgment in the case of

"Sarla Verma & Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another" (2009)

6 SCC 121..

11. The Court further finds that there is no amount provided in the future

prospect which is required to be added in view of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Court

finds that learned tribunal under the conventional head has awarded Rs.

1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. There is no head in so far as loss of

love and affection is concerned, in that view of the matter that part is required to

be modified. Accordingly, the court directs that in the calculated amount future

prospect 40% shall be added. In place of 1/4th deduction on the account of

personal expenses shall be 1/5th considering the number of dependency of the

deceased. Accordingly, that part is modified and in the conventional head in view

of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is required to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- accordingly that

head is modified to the extent that in the conventional head the claimants are

entitled to amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly, award is modified to the above

extent.

12. The enhanced amount shall be paid equally by the two insurance

company namely, National Insurance Company Limited and The Oriental Insurance

Co. Ltd and the owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531

13. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending, I.A, if any,

stands, disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/