Jharkhand High Court
Elizabeth Nag vs Hdfc-Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.418 of 2018
----
1. Elizabeth Nag
2. Daud Nag
3. Arpana Nag .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC-Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at Upper Ground Floor,
Gayatri Enclave, 6th Avenue Road Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur,
Jamshedpur
2. Bhodra Mahto
3. Deepak Mahto @ Chabinath Mahto .... .... Respondent(s)
With
M.A. No.681 of 2017
----
HDFC-Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., office at Upper Ground Floor,
Gayatri Enclave, 6th Avenue Road Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur,
Jamshedpur .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Elizabeth Nag
2. Daud Nag
3. Arpana Nag
4. Bhodra Mahto
5. Deepak Mahto @ Chabinath Mahto
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv.
[In M.A No.418 of 2018]
: Mr. Siddhartha Jyoti Roy, Adv.
[In M.A No.681 of 2017]
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Madhav Prasad, Adv.
----
rd
13/Dated: 03 April, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The miscellaneous appeal being M.A. No.418 of 2018 has been filed
by the claimants for enhancement of the awarded amount on the ground that
future prospect has not been granted by the learned Court below. Although,
the judgment is in favour of the claimants, while, the miscellaneous appeal
being M.A No. 681 of 2017 has been filed by Insurance Company stating
that the amount has to be reduced on considering the contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the company that
contributory negligence has not been considered by the learned Court below.
Further, salary has been taken on higher side and 9% interest per annum is
excessive. Further, right to recovery has been claimed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of
the record, it appears that the pay slip of the deceased is on record, which
suggests that the last salary of the deceased in October, 2015 was around
Rs.20,096/-
5. Since the income of the deceased has been assessed on the basis of
salary slip which requires no interference. There is no challenge to
assessment of the age.
6. So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, the manner of
accident suggests that the TVS Motorcycle, in question, was hit from behind
by the Tata Magic (Vehicle) bearing Registration No.JH05AY-9145 and as
such, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
7. The Tribunal has gone through the entire evidence on record and has
returned the finding that there is no contributory negligence. This Court
finds no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, plea of contributory
negligence is hereby, negated.
8. So far as right to recovery is concerned, the issue No.5 has been
framed by the Tribunal and specific finding has been recorded that there is
nothing on record to suggest that there is any violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy.
Thus, parameters for assessment of the compensation are as follows:-
(i) The age of the deceased has been assessed as 52 years.
(ii) Number of dependants = Three (i.e., widow and two minor children)
9. Applying the formula evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vrs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr reported in
(2009)6 SCC 121, the calculations are made as follows:-
Gross Salary = Rs.20,096/-
(Add) 15% Future Prospect = Rs.3,014/-
= Rs.23,110/-
With
Annual Income = Rs.2,77,320/-
(Less) 1/3rd deduction towards
Personal expenses = Rs.92,440/-
= Rs.1,84,880/-
Multiplier 11 for group of 51 to
55 years Rs.1,84,800 x 11 =Rs.20,33,680/-
Loss towards:
Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/-
Consortium = Rs.40,000/-
Estate = Rs.15,000/-
Amount to be paid = Rs. 21,03,680/-
10. Thus, the compensation amount is Rs. 21,03,680/- as calculated in term
of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra).
11. With the above modification of the quantification, the rest of the
findings of the learned Court below is hereby, upheld.
12. So far as the interest is concerned, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the interest is on the higher
side and which has been opposed by the learned counsel for the claimants
stating that at the relevant point of time, the bank interest was more than 8%.
13. Considering the above fact, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the same. Accordingly, the simple interest of 9% per annum is hereby,
upheld.
14. With the above observation and direction, both the miscellaneous
appeals stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/Amar Kushwaha/-
Uploaded
With
