Jharkhand High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Munni Devi on 3 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.255 of 2024
----
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office Rathor Mension,
Bankmore, P.S. Bankmore, P.O. and District Dhanbad, through Deputy
Manager, authorised Signatory, having its Office at Prabodh Tower, S.N.
Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District-Ranchi
.... .... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. Munni Devi, wife of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo Dusadh
2. Rabi Kumar, Paswan Son of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo
Dusadh
3. Neha Kumari, daughter of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo
Dusadh
4. Punoom Kumari, daughter of Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo
Dusadh
(Respondent Nos.3 to 4 are minors hence being represented through
their Mother respondent No.1 being their natural guardian as their next
friend). All resident at Qr No.84, Bhuli "E" Block, Sector-II, Near Shiv
Mandir, Bhuli Nagar, Tiadaha, P.O. Bhuli P.S. Bankmore, O.P Bhuli,
District Dhanbad
5. Md. Ajahar, Son of Najo Miya @ Jao Miay Resident of Ansar Nagar,
Dhanbad 354, Bhuli, P.O. & O.P Bhuli, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanbad
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Adv.
----
rd
04/Dated: 03 September, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant for
condoning the delay of 64 days in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal.
3. Considering the reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application,
the same is hereby, allowed and accordingly, disposed of and the delay of 64 days
in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal is hereby, condoned.
1. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel has appeared before this Court on
behalf of the respondents and has submitted that he has already filed vakalatnama
on their behalf.
2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the Award dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Dhanbad in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.145 of 2018.
3. It appears that the deceased has died in a road accident on 05.12.2017,
while driving a Maruti (Omni) Car bearing registration No.JH10BD-2139, which
has collided with the offending vehicle i.e., Sumo Car bearing registration
No.JH10Z-2400.
4. The others factors have not been disputed in the present miscellaneous
appeal save and except the income:-
(i) That the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month showing
source of income from the four vehicles, which were being run on
the commercial basis.
5. This issue has been raised on the strength of the judgments which has been
relied by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in the case of
New India Assurance Company Limited vrs. Yogesh Devi & Ors. reported in AIR
2012 SC 945, specially paragraph Nos.11 & 13 and the judgment in the case of
Rani Gupta & Ors. vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR
2009 SC 3226, specially paragraph Nos.24 & 25.
6. On the strength of above judgments, it has been argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the fixed income or an income
which is inheritable cannot be termed as loss of income. In the present case,
vehicle was in the name of the deceased. The vehicle is still producing income and
as such, there is no loss of income.
7. At best, the deceased's income can be taken as maximum Rs.15,000/- per
month as a "driver". Thus, the grant of Rs.40,000/- as a loss of income on account
of business loss, vis-à-vis four commercial vehicles are illegal and contrary to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported hereinabove.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has supported the
Award and submission has been advanced by the learned counsel that the vehicle,
in question, is not capable of producing the income itself. A business has to be
attracted. Business availability and capability is the main factors for generating
income even through a fixed asset.
In the present case, the vehicles were being run on commercial basis and
fetching commerce or client is a business skill. Utilising that business skill, the
deceased was generating income for the family and as such, it requires no
interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record,
it appears that the law has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a
fixed income and inheritable income cannot be termed as loss of income.
Combining the labour or skill of the deceased with the asset is the reason for
generating the income, then it has to be termed as a loss of income and in the
present case this factor has been well considered by the Court below/Tribunal.
10. In view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of.
11. The statutory amount shall be remitted back to the Court below/Tribunal
for release in favour of the claimant or the Insurance Company depending upon
the factual matrix of the case.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
Uploaded
