Jharkhand High Court
Mrs. Jagrani Baxla (Aged About 37 Years) ... vs Saryu Prasad Mahto @ Surya Prasad Mahto ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 304 of 2023
----
1. Mrs. Jagrani Baxla (aged about 37 years) wife of Late Santosh
Toppo
2. Mast. Aksh Aryok Toppo (aged about 11 years) son of Late Santosh
Toppo, minor son of Late Santosh Toppo and as such he is being
represented through his mother and natural guardian i.e. Mrs.
Jagrani Baxla (appellate No.1)
Both are permanent and present resident of village - Pandaria, Post
- Sisai, PS - Sisai, District - Gumla, Pin - 835324, Jharkhand
Earlier residing at Mohalla Khorha Toli (Doamba), Kokar, PS - Sadar,
Post - Ranchi - 834001, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... Appellant
-- Versus --
1. Saryu Prasad Mahto @ Surya Prasad Mahto son of Sri Kokil Mahto,
resident of 61, Palkuru, Nawadih, Bokaro, Post and PS - Bokaro,
District - Bokaro, Jharkhand
At present residing at Care of Ram Parikshan Ram, Gwala Basti,
Bhuinyadih, Post - Agrico, PS - Agrico, Jamshedpur, District - East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer, Palkot Road,
Post and PS - Gumla, District - Gumla, Jharkhand through Regional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, S.N. Ganguly Road,
PS - Kotwali, Post - Ranchi - 834001, Jharkhand
3. Blacius Toppo @ Balasius Toppo @ Blacious Toppo, son of Late
Barnabas Toppo
4. Mrs. Goretti Toppo wife of Balacius Toppo
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 both are earlier resident of village -
Pandaria, PO and PS - Sisai, District - Gumla, 835324, Jharkhand and
presently residing at Khorha Toli (Doamba), Kokar, PS - Sadar, Post -
Ranchi - 834001, District - Ranchi .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants :- Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
:- Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate
----
05/19.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned
counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated
04.07.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.60 of
2018 whereby the award has been made in favour of the appellants.
3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the appellants are the claimants and the present
appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the claim. He submits that
the income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the learned Court
and under the consortium head meagre amount has been allowed. He
submits that there are four dependents and in view of that all are
required to be provided Rs.40,000/- each. He further submits that in light
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the consortium and funeral expenses
are required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. He submits in
view of that at least twice the said amount is required to be enhanced to
the tune of 10% as accident took place in the year 2017 and the
judgment has been delivered in the year 2023.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits
that the learned Court has taken care of all the aspects and has rightly
passed the award. He submits that the learned Court has rightly
calculated the income of the deceased and has come to the figure to
Rs.9,500/- as income. He submits in view of the of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others (supra) the
consortium is rightly calculated by the learned Court and according to
him there is no illegality in the award.
5. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it transpires that
the appellants herein instituted the compensation case stating that on
15.05.2017 the applicant No.1 was travelling with her husband Santosh
Toppo from Ranchi to Sisai in their own car bearing Registration No. JH-
01-CC-0204. The car was being driven in a normal speed by her husband
namely Santosh Toppo. It was further contended that when they reached
near village - Dombu situated within the jurisdiction of Bharno PS,
District - Gumla, all of a sudden a truck being Registration No. JH-05M-
3683 dashed against the car. The driver was driving the truck in rash and
negligent manner. As a result of accident both the occupants of the car
sustained grievous injuries upon their persons. The people of locality took
the accident victim to Primary Health Centre, Bharno for treatment and
after primary treatment they were referred to Alam Hospital and
Research Centre, Ranchi for better treatment but unfortunately the
injured Santosh Toppo died on 16.05.2017 during the course of
treatment. FIR was registered as Bharno P.S. Case No.24 of 2017 dated
19.05.2017 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC against driver
of Truck bearing registration No. JH-05N-3683. Postmortem upon body of
deceased was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide P.M. Report No.1078 of
2017 dated 16.05.17 and Charge-sheet has been submitted on 28.10.17.
The deceased died leaving behind his widow son and parents as
dependents/legal heirs and in that background, they have instituted the
compensation case.
6. The learned Court has examined the contention of appellants
herein with regard to the income of the deceased and has found that
different contentions in the pleadings and testimony of the witnesses
have been taken. In the pleading, it was claimed that he was a private
teacher and imparting tuition to the students and it was further disclosed
that he was agriculturist also and he was earning 25,000/- per month.
A.W.-1, the father of the deceased affirmed the contention of the
pleading. However, the widow of the deceased examined as A.W. 2 -
Jagrani Baxla expanded the scope of income of the deceased. She stated
that her husband was ITI trained mechanic and he had income from that
source also. C.W. 3 - Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal has been examined to
affirm her stand. He has also deposed that he used to work from 10:00
AM to 5:00 PM as mechanic, contrary to that the witness C.W. 1 -
Augustus Kujur, who deposed that his working hours in the school was
also between 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. In this background, the learned
Court has found that there is contradiction with regard to the
engagement in work of the deceased and has taken the minimum wages
of skilled person prevalent in the year 2017 and has come to the
conclusion that Rs.9,500/- was the income.
7. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no error in
coming to the conclusion with regard to the skilled worker prevalent in
the year 2017 in the minimum wages. The Court further finds that the
learned Court in paragraph No.19 of the judgment has considered the
case of the "Pranay Shetty" and rightly granted the consortium in light of
that judgment. There is no illegality in the finding of the learned Court
and has assessed Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and amount that was
also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Pranay Shetty case. There is
no illegality in the order so far consortium and in the said calculation.
8. So far argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellants
of enhancement under the heading consortium @ 10% in every three
years conventional rate. In the light of Pranay Sethi case, the Court finds
force in the argument, as such the conventional head will enhance @
10% for first three years and further three years till the date of the
judgment.
9. The award dated 04.07.2023 is modified to the above extent and
rest of the award is kept intact, the Court has not interfered with that.
10. This appeal is allowed in part in above terms and disposed of.
11. Let the trial court record be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
A.F.R.
