Jharkhand High Court
Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer vs Dulari Hadi on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 362 of 2016
-----
Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Plant Cum Controller of Stores of
locomotive works, P.O & P.S.-Chittaranjan, Dist.-Burdwan (W.B.)
... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Dulari Hadi, W/o Sri Gaud Hadi, R/o PB Road, P.O.-Hadipara, P.S.-
Mihijam, Dist.-Jamtara, Jharkhand
2. Promod Kumar Dubey, S/o Late, Sudam Dubey, R/o Vill-
Chittaranjan, P.S.-Fatehpur, Chittaranjan, Dist.-Burdwan (W.B.)
... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
20 / Dated : 27.02.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award
of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act,
whereby and whereunder, liability has been fixed on the appellant to
pay compensation to the claimants for a sum of Rs. 2,16,500/- with
simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of judgment.
2. Facts are not in dispute that one Bali Hadi met with an accident
with offending vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-38C-3386 under
the ownership of the appellant resulting in his death.
3. The award of compensation has been assailed on the ground
that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking multiplier 8 in place of 5,
as considering the age of the deceased of 60 years, as provided in the
Motor Vehicle Act under second schedule applicable in cases filed
under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
4. It is further argued that the claimant was married daughter and
she will not be entitled to compensation in view ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (Appeal (Civil) Case No. 1702 of 2007).
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that
claimant has been examined as C.W.3 in the present case and has stated
in her examination-in-chief on affidavit that she was living with her
father and no cross-examination has been made on this point.
6. Whether a legal representative who is not dependent shall be
entitled to a claim of compensation or not has been answered
in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 in
the following words:
"15. Judged in that background where a legal representative
who is not dependant files an application for compensation,
the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to
Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of
dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative
will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall
be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the
Act".
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356
"14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of
the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having
said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased being legal
representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it
would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the legal
representative concerned was fully dependent on the
deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional
heads only".
In view of the above emphatic statement of law, the argument
that the claimant being the married daughter of the deceased and hence
not dependent is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. Now coming to the argument regarding applicable multiplier,
for the age up to 60 years, I do not find any error as it is 8 as per
Schedule-II.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment and
Award.
This Misc. Appeal being without merit is, accordingly,
dismissed with cost.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
