Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Rekha Devi on 25 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Miscellaneous Appeal No.218 of 2015
----
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Lalji
Hirji Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi .... Appellant
-- Versus --
1.Rekha Devi, wife of late Pramod Sah - deleted v/o dated. 21.11.2022
2.Ajit Sah (Minor) son of late Pramod Sah
3.Ganpat Sah, son of Mahavir Sah
4.Smt. Longia Devi, Wife of Ganpat Saw
(Respondent no.2 is minor hence is being represented through his
mother as natural guardian and next friend)
All residents of village Jhikatia, PO+PS-Imamganj, District Gaya at
present residing at Khadgarah, P.O.+P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi
(Claimant Nos.1 to 4 respectively)
5.Anand Kumar Sahu, son of Sri Gopal Prasad Sahu, resident of Gopalganj,
Pyada Toli, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi
.... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant :- Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For Resp.Nos.2to4 :- Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Kumar Saw, Advocate
For Resp.No.5 :- Mr.Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
----
11/25.01.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant/insurance company, Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned
counsel assisted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Saw, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4, who were claimants
and Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.5.
The present appeal has been filed being dissatisfied with
the judgment and award dated 18.12.2014, passed by Presiding Officer,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case
No.90(T) of 2001.
The deceased namely Pramod Sahu aged about 25 years
having monthly earning of Rs.5000/- from business of sale of vegetables
was coming on Tata 407 truck on 14.9.2001 along with his goods i.e.
vegetable which he had purchased. The said Tata 407 truck driven by the
driver rashly and negligently turned upside down near Pakaria bridge on
Ranchi-Lohardaga road causing injuries and subsequent death of Pramod
Sah. The deceased was coming from Chanho Bazar and he was coming
to Ranchi. The said Pramod Sah was admitted for treatment at RMCH,
Ranchi and in course of treatment he died. Other persons who were
travelling on the said Tata 407 truck along with their goods were also
injured. The claim for Rs.4 lac has been made with interest and litigation
cost.
The claimant no.1 is widow of the deceased, claimant no.2
is minor son of the deceased, claimant no.3 is the father and claimant
no.4 is the mother of the deceased.
In the said award the compensation was decided by the
learned Tribunal on the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence
on behalf of the parties.
Mr. Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company submits that although the driving license point was
taken before the learned Tribunal, but in view of subsequent
development, that point is not being pressed by the appellant,
considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment on professional driving
license if a person is having LMV driving license and driving any vehicle it
cannot be questioned and in that view of the matter that point is not
being pressed in this appeal. He further submits that the learned
Tribunal has not considered that the deceased was travelling in a goods
vehicle and in that view of the matter the liability is required to be
fastened upon the owner. He further submits that on the future prospects
in view of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the enhancement of 50% on
future prospect is required to be reduced to 40%. According to him for
loss of consortium, for loss of love and affection, conventional head
calculated Rs.2,10,000/- whereas it should be Rs.70,000/- in light of the
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra)
and the interest 9% is also required to be reduced.
The learned counsel for the owner submits that the
appellant has not been able to demonstrate before the learned Tribunal
about contention with regard to goods vehicle and in that view of the
matter the liability cannot be fastened upon the owner.
The learned counsel for the claimants submits that 50%
future prospects so allowed has not been able to be demolished by the
argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
In view of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and Others (supra), as per the paragraph nos.59.4 and 59.8 of that
judgment with respect to future prospects 40% and conventional head
Rs.70,000/- respectively are the law and in view of that, that part of the
award is modified to the effect that for future prospects the
enhancement should be 40%. There is no law or any judgment for
payment on the point of loss of love and affection and care of
guardianship and in that view of the matter, the convention head is
required to be modified to the tune of Rs.70,000/- in light of the
judgment in case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) and 40% for future
prospects. So far the contention of Mr. Lal, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant with regard to the liability to be fastened upon the
owner is concerned, that part has been taken care of by the learned
Tribunal that the deceased comes under the definition of third party and
the owner come under the first party and in that view of the matter, on
that contention, the owner is not held liable by the Court and the same is
rejected.
Considering that till date the award is not satisfied, the
argument with regard to interest part is also rejected by this Court.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms and stands
disposed of by way of modification, as indicated hereinabove.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be
transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which shall be paid to the
claimants along with the fruit of the award within 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of the order.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
