Sarita Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 3114 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sarita Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 5 March, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               M. A. No. 253 of 2015
         1.Sarita Devi, W/o Late Krishna Dev Mahto
         2.Rahul Kumar (Minor), Son of Late Krishna Dev Mahto
         3.Lakho Mahto, S/o Late Tula Mahto
         4.Smt. Bashwa Devi, W/o Lakho Mahto
         All residents of Village- Naglo, P.O.Pordag. P.S.- Nemiaghat, District-
         Giridih at present resident of C/o Durga Mahto, at Village- Dhajatand,
         P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad.
         Sl. No.2 represented through his natural guardian mother [appellant
         no.1].                                       .... .. ... Appellant(s)
                               Versus
         1.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Alwar Branch Office, P.O.
         & District- Alwar, Rajasthan, through the Branch Manager, Oriental
         Insurance Company Limited, Dhanbad, Branch Office, at Rathore
         Mansion (1st Floor), P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bankmore, District- Dhanbad.
         2.Sahabdeen Khan, S/o Rahmat Khan, R/o Village & P.O. + P.S.-
         Chimrawali Gaur Teh, District- Alwar, Rajasthan.
                                          .            .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                     ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate ......

07/ 05.03.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The claimants/ appellants are in appeal for enhancement of the judgment/ Award of compensation dated 27.02.2015 passed by learned District Judge-II cum MACT Judge, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.274 of 2010 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

2. The facts of the case are not in much dispute.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants/ claimants seeks enhancement of Award of compensation mainly on the ground that compensation under the head of Loss of earning of Future Prospect has not been allowed and compensation under the conventional head has not been properly calculated 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.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company while defending the impugned judgment of compensation does not dispute the factual assertions advanced on behalf of the claimants.

5. Considering the submissions, this Court is of the view that claimants are entitled to get compensation under the head of future prospect

@40% on Rs.3,88,800/- i.e.Rs.1,55,520/- and further under the Conventional Head, a sum of Rs.84,000/- in place of Rs.9500/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.

6. Accordingly, compensation of Rs 3,88,800/- is enhanced by Rs.1,55,520/- Plus Rs.74,500/- [Rs.84,000/- Minus Rs.9500/-]= Rs.2,30,020/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Twenty].The Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal will disburse the same to the claimants within two weeks.

Misc. Appeal is accordingly, allowed.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/