Jharkhand High Court
Aayesha Khatoon vs (A)Raju Kumar Singh @ Raju Kumar on 16 January, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 312 of 2013
1.Aayesha Khatoon
2.Tajmul Ansari
3.Majmul Ansari
4.Tafejul Ansari
5.Ajmeri Khatoon
6.Rizwana Khatoon .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1(a)Raju Kumar Singh @ Raju Kumar
1(b) Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Kumar
1(c) Awadhesh Kumar Singh
2.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Hazaribagh
3.Neyamat Ansari
4.Munni Khatoon (dead)
5.Musmat Najiwan Nisha
6.Saddam Hussain .. ... ...Respondent(s)
With
M. A. No. 39 of 2014
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Hazaribagh, through the
Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi represented
through its Asst. Manager, Legal Cell, National Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Aayesha Khatoon
2.Tajmul Ansari
3.Majmul Ansari
4.Tafejul Ansari
5.Ajmeri Khatoon
6.Rizwana Khatoon
7(a). Raju Kumar Singh @ Raju Kumar
7(b).Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Kumar
7(c) Awdhesh Kumar Singh
8.Neyamat Ansri
9.Munni Khatoon (dead)
10.Musomat Najmoon Nisha
11.Saddam Hussain .. .. ... Respondents
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. K. Lall, Advocate
[M.A. 312 of 2013]
Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
[M.A. 39 of 2014]
For the Resp(s). 5 & 6 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
[M.A. 312 of 2013]
......
17/ 16.01.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Both these Misc. Appeal are arising out of common judgment passed in
Compensation Case No.265 of 2005 whereby and whereunder a compensation
of Rs.5,44,160/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of settlement
of issue i.e. 27.08.2010 till the date of realization for death of Tahir Ansari
(deceased) in a motor vehicle accident involved in a truck bearing Registration
No.BEM 3921 has been challenged.
M.A. No.39 of 2014.
2. The aforesaid Misc. Appeal has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle against
the order/ judgment of compensation, whereas M.A. No.312 of 2013 has been
filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that the
said Truck was being plied without having a road permit and without a valid
licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was entitled to get right of
recovery against the owner of the vehicle.
4. On perusal of the records of the instant Misc. Appeal, it appears that no evidence
has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company in support of the pleading that
there was no valid permit or licence of the Driver.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned
Tribunal upon issue Nos.6 & 7 decided in favour of the claimants. Therefore,
M.A. No.39 of 2014 preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company fails
and accordingly stands dismissed.
6. Statutory amount deposited by Insurance Company while filing of the Misc.
Appeal to be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants against
the compensation amount.
7. It is argued by Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants
that the instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation
amount. It is evident from the order / judgment dated 19.06.2018 passed by this
Court that the awarded amount has been paid to the claimants.
8. The enhancement has been claimed on the ground that the deceased was working
as a Driver at the relevant time of accident, and evidence has been led regarding
his monthly income of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, but the learned
Tribunal computed the compensation by taking Rs.3,000/- as monthly income
and evidence included driving licence (Ext.6) and original Passport of Tahid
Ansari (deceased) as Ext. 5 as he was preparing himself to go to abroad to earn
his livelihood by his occupation of driving.
9. It is submitted that the salary certificate showing his monthly income has also
been filed as Ext. 7.
10. Contra it is argued by Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has recorded
the specific grounds for not accepting the income of Rs.6,500/- per month in
Para-26 of the judgment.
11. It is further argued that the deceased was having two wives and the same was
admitted by the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation to the members
of the family, but consortium of Rs.10,000/- only has been awarded.
12. The sum and substance of the argument advanced on behalf of
appellants/claimants is that the award of compensation is not in consonance with
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 and also in the subsequent judgment rendered in the case of Saroj & Ors.
vs. IFFCO- TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. in SLP (C) Nos.23939-23940
of 2023.
13. Having considered the submission of both the sides, this Court is of the view that
there is no infirmity in assessment of the income of the deceased for the reasons
as detailed in Para-26 of the judgment. However, as far as under the head of Loss
of Estate, Funeral Expense and Loss of Consortium is concerned, the claim for
enhancement appears to be sustainable.
14. Consortium amount by taking loss of Estate as Rs.15,000/-, Funeral expense as
Rs.15,000/- and loss of Consortium as Rs.40,000/- for each wife of the deceased
(total two wives).
15. Accordingly, the final compensation amount will work out as under:-
Sl. No. Heads Calculation
1. Award of compensation Rs.5,24,160
computed on the basis of
annual dependency
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-X 2= Rs.80,000/-
Total Rs.6,34,160/-
16. The claimants shall therefore, be entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,34,160/- along
with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till
the date of its realization after deducting the amount already disbursed to the
claimants. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the
compensation amount to the learned Tribunal within six weeks from this order.
17. The compensation amount will be distributed amongst the claimants as per the
terms fixed by the learned Tribunal.
18. The instant Misc. Appeal stands partly allowed.
Let the LCR be remitted to the concerned Tribunal at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
