Jharkhand High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Phaguni Devi Wife Of Late Turi Munda on 24 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.256 of 2015
------
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Hindustan
Building, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand represented through its Sr. Divisional Manager, the
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi, D.O.-I, Tiwary Enclave, Circular Road,
Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Phaguni Devi wife of Late Turi Munda
2. Ghasi Ram Munda son of Late Turi Munda
3. Kunwari Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Turi Munda
4. Palo Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Turi Munda
5. Gansa Munda (Minor) daughter of Late Turi Munda
6. Sami Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Turi Munda
7. Mukta Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Turi Munda
8. Sinu Munda (Minor) son of Late Turi Munda
9. Sohrai Munda (Minor) son of Late Turi Munda
Respondent Nos.2-9 are minor, represented through their mother and
natural guardian Phaguni Devi (respondent no.1)
All are residents of Village Bayangadih, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand
10. Md. Mustkim Ansari son of Ajim Ansari, NH 37, Beltola, P.O. and P.S.
Guwahati, District Kamrup, Assam at present, A.M. Road, P.O. and P.S.
Mokokchung, District Mokokchung, Nagaland
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.13 / Dated : 24.02.2025
The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment of award
of compensation in Compensation Case No.103/2010 whereby and
whereunder the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- has been awarded in favour
of the claimants and the liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company
to pay compensation amount.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company
that admittedly the driver of offending vehicle was Md. Sarde Alam. The
Insurance Company adduced into evidence Exhibit A which was a report
submitted by Sanjay Prasad Sahu (Surveyor of Insurance Company), who on
the basis of the report of D.T.O., Lohardaga stated that driving license
no.1268 of 2002 in the name of Md. Sarde Alam, was not issued by D.T.O.,
Lohardaga therefore, once original driving license was proved to be fake, the
subsequent driving license bearing no.843 of 2002 issued by D.T.O.,
Jamshedpur cannot be deemed to be effective and valid driving license.
Further, the learned Tribunal while computing compensation amount under
the head of future prospect has taken 50% which should be 40% as per the
ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Although,
the deceased was survived by eight children, but there is no provision for
more than 1/5th deduction as per the settled law. Under the conventional
had also, a total of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded which is also not
inconsonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. Further, interest of
9% and penal interest of 12% is not permissible.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of claimants defended the impugned
award. It is submitted that award under conventional head has been made
on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jiju
Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 166.
4. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the claimants that learned
Tribunal has computed the monthly income by taking Rs.3000/- which
should be Rs.7000/-.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides, in view of finding of fact on the issue of monthly income by the
learned Tribunal and the reasons given for the same, I do not find any
reason to interfere with it so far the income of Rs 3000/- is concerned.
6. Plea of Insurance Company that there was breach of Insurance policy for
the vehicle was driven by a person having no driving license, cannot be
acceded to. Exhibit A 1 is a document adduced into evidence on behalf of
Insurance Company, states that driving license bearing no.843 of 2002 was
validly issued in the name of driver, Md. Sarde Alam by D.T.O.,
Jamshedpur. Even if it is assumed that original driving license was not
validly issued, this Court is of the view that owner of vehicle cannot be
saddled with liability to verify genuineness of the driving license from the
initial issuing authority. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh
& Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297].
7. So far as computation of compensation amount is concerned, in
order to bring uniformity, Hon'ble Supreme Court by full Bench decision in
Pranay Sethi case (supra) has specifically laid down the law which is
binding. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court, the final
compensation amount, by taking Rs.3000/- as monthly income and 36 years
age at the time of his death, 1/5th as living expense of the deceased and 40%
under future head, the final compensation amount will work out as under: -
Annual Income = Rs.3000/- X 12 Rs.36,000/-
Future Prospect Rs.36,000/- Rs.14,400/-
X 40%
After adding annual income and Rs.36,000 + Rs.14,400 =Rs.50,400/-
future prospect
Deduction (1/5th as total nos. of Rs.50,400 X 1/5 =Rs.10,080/-
dependants are 8)
After deduction Rs.50,400 - Rs.10,080 = Rs.40,320/-
Multiplier of 15 taking the age of the Rs. 6,04,800/-
deceased to be 36 as per post-mortem
report
Conventional Head Rs.84,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 6,04,800 +Rs.84,000 =Rs.6,88,800/-
8. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimant as per the
terms fixed by it. It will take note of the fact that the judgment is of the year
2015 when claimant nos.2-9 were minor, and some or all may have attained
majority by this time and there will be no requirement of fixing the said
amount in their names in long term deposits.
Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to
make payment of Rs.6,88,800/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of
the claim application, within a month of the order, which shall be disbursed
to the claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to
the claimants. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. It goes
without saying that payment earlier made will be debited.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
