Jharkhand High Court
Budho Devi vs Md. Jamaluddin Ansari on 2 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 231 of 2014
Budho Devi, wife of Jagwa Uraon, resident of village Raham, Tola Chatar, P.O. and
P.S. Tandwa, District-Chatra ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Md. Jamaluddin Ansari, son of Mauzi Mian, resident of village Bakchuma (Dari),
P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District Chatra (owner)
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag,
District-Hazaribag. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate
08/Dated: 02/01/2023
Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mrs. Rita Kumari learned
counsel for the respondent no.2.
Aggrieved with judgment and award of compensation amount dated
08.10.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum-Additional Claim Tribunal-
III, Chatra in Claim Case No. 28 of 2009, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Subhash Uraon met with vehicular accident at about 10.00 A.M. on 29.04.2009 and
died. He submits that the mother of the deceased has filed the claim case before the
tribunal and the learned tribunal after discussing the facts as well as documents and
the witnesses have awarded the compensation in favour of the appellant to the tune
of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ Rs. 8% per annum from the date of institution of
this case till realization of the amount. He submits that the compensation is not
adequate and for enhancement of the said compensation, the appellant has
approached this Court. He submits that the learned tribunal has wrongly applied the
multiplier method of 15 in the case of the deceased as the age of the deceased was
about 12 years. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been recently
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Meena Devi Vs. Nanu
Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others" reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C.
371 (S.C.) He relied on para 11, 13 and 14 of the said judgment which is quoted
here-in-below:-
"11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan
Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317, wherein a child aged
about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this
Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier
of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and adding
Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-.
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age
of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down
in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of
the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the
deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and
studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional
earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the
multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla
Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if
we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of
compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT,
lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while
the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the
Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not
just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove.
Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and
on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs.
2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of
a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal
Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act,
there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court
ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts
relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less
valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment
to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award is required to
be modified.
On the other hand, Mrs. Rita Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2-Insurance Company submits that the learned tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier method of 15 and there is no illegality in the award and this court may not
interfere with the award.
Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that
the vehicle was insured that is why Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation which is required to be enhanced.
In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
the court has gone through the material on record and finds that admittedly Subhash
Uraon met with vehicular accident on 29.04.2009 and died. The age of the deceased
was about 12 years. Admittedly, the learned tribunal has allowed the claim of the
appellant however, multiplier was applied of 15 only and the age of the deceased was
about 12 years at that time. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of 'Meena Devi' (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellant
accepting the notional earning including future prospect and applying the multiplier
of 15 in view of the decision in the case of "Sarla Verma & Others V. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another" (2009) 6 SCC 121 the loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if added Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the
total sum of compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was
awarded to the appellant and in that view of the matter the compensation enhanced
to Rs. 3,50,000/-.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation as
awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 3,50,000/- in addition. The total
amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that the award has already been complied. In that view of the matter Rs.
3,50,000/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company. The due amount will be paid by
the respondent no. 2- Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd, Hazaribag within a period
of eight weeks from today.
The Award dated 08.10.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 28 of 2009 is
modified in above terms.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
