Jharkhand High Court
Mostt. Urmila W/O Late Darshan Rana vs Manager Of United India Insurance ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 174 of 2015
1.Mostt. Urmila W/o Late Darshan Rana
2.Sanjay Kumar Rana (Minor)
3.Prakash Rana (Minor)
4.Soni Kumari (Minor)
Appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 through natural guardian and mother, Mostt. Urmila and
are sons and daughter of Late Darshan Rana
5.Mostt. Parwati, W/o Late Dukhan Rana
All R/o Village- Barkathadih, P.O. & P.S. Barkatha, District- Hazaribagh
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hazaribagh Branch,
Hazaribagh.
2.Manoj Kumar Prasad, C/o Bishwanath Prasad, R/o NH 33, Pardih Chowk,
Mango, Jamshedpur, District :- East Singhbhum.
3.Rabindra Yadav, S/o Raj Deo Yadav, Pardih, Mango, Jamshedpur, District :-
East Singhbhum.
.. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
M/s Priyanka, Abhishek Kr.,
Amandeep, Advs.
For the Resp. (Insurance Comp.): Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
......
08/ 21.01.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Claimants/ appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of
compensation awarded by Presiding Officer, MVACT, Hazaribagh in Claim
Case No.11 of 2006 against the insurance company.
2. Earlier the notice was issued on the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by which the
owner and insurance company have already appeared. The driver was
impleaded as respondent no.3, but as per the service report he has died.
Accordingly, appeal stands abated against him.
3. Claimants are the legal heirs and descendants of Darshan Rana (deceased).
The deceased and one Suresh Yadav who were returning to his house by Hero
Honda motorcycle no. JH-02 C-4079 which met with an accident with LP
truck no. JH 05F 5075 resulting into his death. Learned Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,57,000/- as compensation to the claimant(s) and Rs.
5,000/- as loss of consortium to appellant no. 1 who happens to be the wife of
the deceased.
4. There is no contrary evidence led by the Insurance Company in support of the
case that it was a case of contributory negligence. Despite this, a finding of
contributory negligence has been recorded.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that award of
compensation is not as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the compensation has not been awarded
under the following heads :-
I. Future prospects have not been calculated.
II. The funeral expenses and consortium has been awarded for a sum of Rs.
2000/- and Rs.5,000/- only.
III. There were more than three dependants, but the dependency has been
computed by subtracting one third as personal expenses of the deceased
instead of one fourth.
IV. As per the post-mortem examination report, the multiplier has not been
computed;
V. Simple interest @ 6% per annum has been allowed from the date of framing
of the issues whereas, the law is settled that compensation along with interest
from the date of filing of filing of claim till its realization.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Manish Kumar has
defended the impugned award. It is submitted that as per the ration card which
has been brought on record, the age of the deceased was to be 42 years and 6
months at the time of accident and as per the schedule, a multiplier of 14 will
be applicable for the said age. However, learned counsel could not controvert
the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants for the deficiency in the
compensation amount as it was not as per the settled law with regard to the
award of compensation under different heads.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, this
Court finds that there is merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant that finding of contributory negligence is perverse in as much as no
contrary evidence regarding the negligence of the deceased had been led by
the Insurance Company.
8. Furthermore, the compensation has not been made as per the settled law. In
this view of matter taking Rs.4000/- as the monthly income of the deceased
having age of 42 years, the final compensation may be computed. The final
calculation will be as under :-
Annual income of the Rs.4,000/- X 12 =
deceased takingRs.48,000/- +
Rs.4,000/- as monthly Rs.48,000/- X ¼ as
income + 25% as Future prospect =
Future prospect Rs.60,000/-
Annual Dependency Rs.60,000/-
after deducting 1/4th Rs.15,000/-=
Rs.45,000/-
Multiplier taking 42 14 Rs.45,000/- X
years as the age of the 14=Rs.6,30,000/-
deceased at the time of
the accident
Loss of Estate, Funeral Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/-
Expenses and Loss of
Consortium
Total Rs.7,00,000/-
9. The claimants/ appellants shall, therefore, be entitled to get compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- 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 the payment of the compensation amount to the learned Tribunal within
six weeks from this order/ judgment. Thereafter the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the compensation amount to the claimants within two weeks.
Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
