Smt. Champa Devi vs Ganesh Ram
2025 Latest Caselaw 4503 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Champa Devi vs Ganesh Ram on 3 April, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                   2025:JHHC:10420



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           M. A. No. 221 of 2012
         1.Smt. Champa Devi, W/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         2.Pramod Ram, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         3.Pintu Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         4.Mintu Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         5.Pawan Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         6.Rupa Kumari, D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Ram
         All residents of Village and Post Pesham, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih.
         7.Smt. Mamta Devi, W/o Sri Prakash Ram Gupta
         R/o Village :- Phulari Tanr Vasti- Nawagarh, P.O. Kharkhari, P.S.
         Madhuban, District- Dhanbad.
         8. Smt. Babita Devi, W/o Sri Anand Ram
         R/o Village and P.O.- Remba, P.S. Jamua, District- Giridih, PIN
         825412.
         9.Smt. Neelam Devi, W/o Sri Ram Nandan Kumar Gupta, R/o Village
         and Post - Sonardih, P.S. Madhuban, District- Dhanbad.
         10.Smt. Gauri Devi, W/o Late Ram Lakhan Ram, R/o Village and Post-
         Pesham, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih.   .... .. ... Appellant(s)

                                      Versus

         1.Ganesh Ram, S/o Late Mathura Ram, R/o Village & Post- Pesham,
         P.S. Birni, District- Giridih.
         2.Sarfuddin Ansari, S/o Ashin Ansari, R/o Village and Post- Taratand,
         P.S. Ahilyapur, District- Giridih.
         3.Murlidhar Yadav, S/o Kati Yadav, R/o Village- Purnadih, Post-
         Charakh (Kolhar), P.S. Tundi, District- Dhanabd at present R/o Mohalla-
         Barmasiya, P.O. & P.S. Giridih (Town), District- Giridih.
         4.Bank of India, Pesham Branch, Village and Post- Pesham, P.S. Birni,
         District- Giridih.
         5.The New India Assurance Company Limited through Branch Manager,
         Giridih Branch, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, 815301.
         6.The New India Assurance Company Limited through Divisional
         Manager, Divisional Office, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.
                                                     .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                      ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath & Mr. Shivam Singh, Advs.

For the Resp.(s)/I.C. : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ......

17/ 03.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The claimants/ appellants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded under Section 163A of the M.V. Act vide impugned Judgment /Award dated 22nd August, 2012 passed by learned District Judge No.1- cum- MVACT, Giridih, in Claim Case No.63 of 2005.

2. As per the case of the claimants, it is alleged that on 22.07.2005, one Laxmi Narayan Ram (deceased) was going on Tempo bearing 2025:JHHC:10420

Registration No.JH-11B 8818 which was being driven by Driver, Murlidhar Yadav. The said tempo met with an accident with Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.JH-11B 8549 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Sarfuddin Ansari in which said Laxmi Narayan Ram sustained fatal injury and died while being taken to the Hospital.

3. Further, case of the claimants is that deceased was the owner of the Tempo in which he was travelling and was having cloth business from which he had monthly income of Rs.8500/-. Learned Tribunal accepted the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- only and awarded compensation of Rs.2,64,000/-. Learned Tribunal assessed the compensation and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- by holding that there was contributory negligence of both the vehicle to the extent of 50%.

4. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that in the oral evidence, it has come that the deceased was having monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month which remained undemolished in the cross-examination and without any contrary evidence, the income of the deceased of Rs.3,000/- per month has only been accepted.

5. Further, deceased was not the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, contributory negligence could not have been attributed to the deceased who was simply the owner and was travelling in the vehicle.

6. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal has not assessed the loss under the head of Future Prospect and meagre amount has been allowed under the conventional head. The deceased left behind ten dependents, for which, deduction under personal and living expenses should have been 1/5th whereas only 1/3rd has been taken. Rate of interest should have been awarded from the date of filing of claim application and not from the date of closing of evidence.

7. It is argued by the Learned counsel for the Insurance company and rightly so that the learned Tribunal has assigned specific reason for not accepting all the claimants to be the dependents of the deceased and to be particular the major daughters and major sons have been impleaded as dependents and further they cannot be regarded as dependents of the deceased. The dependents of the deceased will be 2025:JHHC:10420

claimant No.1, claimant No.6 (Minor daughter) and claimant No.10, the old aged mother of the deceased. Therefore, there was no infirmity so far as 1/3rd deduction under the head of living expense of the deceased is concerned.

8. I find merit in the argument on behalf of the Insurance Company on the point of contributory negligence, that there is finding of the Tribunal that 50% of contributory negligence was on the driver of the vehicle on which the deceased owner was also travelling. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jhuma Saha And Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263, the owner could not have claimed compensation for the part of negligence of his own vehicle.

9. Further, so far as income from the cloth business is concerned, altogether 18 documents have been exhibited on behalf of the claimants, but not a single chit of paper has been filed with regard to cloth business which is being claimed to have been carried out. Under the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned Award passed by learnedTribunal having not accepted the income of the deceased from cloth business, and there was no infirmity keeping the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 2005 is concerned and there was no documentary evidence on record to show that he was involved in the said cloth business in any manner.

10. Further with regard to contributory negligence, finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo of which the deceased was the owner. Finding of fact on this issue is based upon evidence and it cannot be interfered with.

11. In this view of the matter as rightly been held by the learned Tribunal that the owner could not have claimed the compensation for default and negligence while driving of his own vehicle, therefore, there is no infirmity so far as finding of fact as 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo is concerned.

12. Lastly in the present case, it is not a question whether the major son in absence of any other dependents will be entitled to get compensation or not. In such cases the major sons or daughters will be entitled to get compensation. The question can major sons and married daughters can be accepted for determining the dependency and deduction under the head of personal and living expense of the 2025:JHHC:10420

deceased. It is expected that the married daughter(s) will not be dependents of the deceased so is the case of the major son. Therefore, there is no infirmity so far as 1/3rd deduction is concerned.

13. The compensation will be as under :-

Annual income of the Rs.36,000/- as the = Rs.39,600/-

          deceased          taking   Annual Income Plus
          Rs.3,000/- as monthly      10%       as      Future
          income + 10% as Future     prospect] i.e. Rs.3,600/-
          prospect
          Annual     Dependency      Rs.13, 200/-             Rs.39,600/-      Minus
          after deducting as 1/3rd                            Rs.13, 200/-
                                                              =Rs.26,400/-
          Multiplier taking 11 Rs.26,400/-X 11                =Rs.2,90,400/-
          years as the age of the
          deceased to be 54
          years at the time of the
          accident
          Loss of Estate, Funeral Rs.84,000/-                 Rs.84,000/-
          Expenses and Loss of
          Consortium
                                      Total                   Rs.3,74,400/-
          The     claimants       are                         Rs.1,87,200/-
          entitled to get half of the
          compensation amount
          due to contributory
          negligence

14. The Respondent No.5- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,87,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

The payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal will disburse the same to the dependents of the deceased who are appellant No.1 [wife of the deceased, Smt. Champa Devi], appellant No.6 (Minor daughter, namely, Rupa Kumari) and appellant No.10, mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Gauri Devi within two weeks.

15. It goes without saying that the amount already paid shall be deducted in final compensation amount.

Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-