Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi Wife Of Late Pankaj ... vs Shakti Singh Son Of Sukhdeo Singh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.419 of 2014
1. Smt. Sunita Devi wife of Late Pankaj Kumar
2. Ritika Kumari daughter of Late Pankaj Kumar
The appellant no.2 is presently minor as such she is being represented
through her mother /natural guardian and next friend i.e. Smt. Sunita Devi,
the appellant no.1 herein, both residents of Village and Post Harladih, P.S.
Pirtand, District Giridih (Jharkhand) at present C/o Sri Tej Narayan Gupta
son of late Basaki Ram Village Bhatumurna More, Post Katrasgarh, P.S.
Katras District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Shakti Singh son of Sukhdeo Singh, resident of Village Simar Konhi, P.O.
and P.S. Pirtand, District Giridih (Jharkhand)
2. Kanhaiya Lal son of Bhuneshwar Lal Village Buxidih Road, P.O. Giridih,
P.S. Giridih (T) District (Giridih (Jharkhand)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, 19,
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, P.O. Mumbai, P.S. Mumbai,
District Mumbai
4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Nalgaam Cross Road, next
to Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (West), P.S. Wadala (West), P.O.
Mumbai- 400031, District Mumbai (Maharashtra
5. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager,
1st Floor, Commerce House 2, Shastri Nagar, above Ashoka Bajaj Show
Room, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
6. Chandan Kumar son of Basant Ram and Smt. Veena Devi, residing at
Buxidih Road, Samanta Poultry Farm, P.O. Giridih Town,
District Giridih .... .... .... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No.363 of 2014
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, 19,
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, P.O. Mumbai, P.S. Mumbai,
District Mumbai through its Centre Manager Sri Sourav Banerjee, son of
Baidyanath Banerjee, resident of Room No.508, Giranjali Enclave, P.O., P.S.
Lalpur, District Ranchi .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sunita Devi wife of Late Pankaj Kumar
2. Ritika Kumari daughter of Late Pankaj Kumar
The appellant no.2 is presently minor as such she is being represented
through her mother /natural guardian and next friend i.e. Smt. Sunita Devi,
both resident of Village and P.O. Harladih, P.S. Pirtand, District Giridih,
Jharkhand at present residing at their Naihar, C/o Sri Tej Narayan Gjupta,
son of Late Basaki Ram, Village Bhatmurna More, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S.
Katras, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3(a) Chandan Kumar (adult son), residing at Buxidih Road, Samanta
Poultary Farm, P.O. Giridih Town, District Giridih, Jharkhand
4. Shakti Singh son of Sukhdeo Singh, resident of Village Simar Konhi, P.O.
and P.S. Pirtand, District Giridih (Jharkhand)
5. Kanhaiya Lal son of Bhuneshwar Lal resident of Village Buxidih Road, P.O.
Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T) District Giridih (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Respondents
1
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Ms. D. Aarti Kumari, Advocate
(In Misc. Appeal No.419 of 2014)
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
(In Misc. Appeal No.363 of 2014)
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Ms. D. Aarti Kumari, Advocate
(In Misc. Appeal No.363 of 2014)
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
(In Misc. Appeal No.419 of 2014)
------
Order No.15 / Dated : 11.03.2025
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award of
compensation in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No.30/2010 whereby and
whereunder the compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- has been awarded with 9%
interest per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for the death of
Pankaj Kumar aged 35 years in a motor vehicle accident, involving a bus
bearing registration no.JH 9E 2290.
2. Claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation in M.A.
No.419 of 2014, whereas the Insurance Company in M.A. No.363 of 2014 is
against the award of compensation on the ground that it was excessive.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant that
the deceased was running a small restaurant with a monthly income of
Rs.10,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has taken Rs.5000/- as his income.
Further, no award has been made under the head of future prospect, and under
conventional head only Rs.7000/- has been awarded which is not as per the
ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
4. Contra, argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that
although it has been claimed that the deceased was having restaurant business,
but not a chit of paper has been filed to substantiate the pleadings regarding
business. Neither income tax return has been filed nor sale/commercial tax or
permission to run the restaurant by the Municipal Corporation.
5. I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf the claimants that
only Rs.5000/- has been considered by the Tribunal as income of the deceased,
therefore, there cannot be any question of filing Income Tax Return for such a
meagre income. In any case for small business, documentary evidence cannot
be an indispensable proof of monthly income. Learned Tribunal has recorded a
finding of monthly income of Rs.5000/- which does not appear to be excessive
by any standard.
6. The final compensation amount taking Rs.5000/- as monthly income,
and the age of the deceased 35 years with 1/3rd as personal and living expenses
and loss of income to the extent of 40% as future prospect, the final
compensation amount will work out as under: -
Annual Income 5000 x 12 Rs.60,000/-
Annual dependency after deducting Rs.40,000/-
1/3rd on the living and personal
expenses of the deceased
Loss of dependency on taking a Rs.6,40,000/-
multiplier of 16
Future prospect @ 40% Rs. 2,56,000/-
Conventional head Rs.84,000/-
Total Rs.9,80,000/-
7. The Insurance Company is directed to make final payment of
compensation of amount of Rs.9,80,000/- with interest @ 6 % from the date of
filing of the claim application. Amount to be deposited within one month from
the date of the order with the learned Tribunal, which will be disbursed to the
appellant nos. 1 and 2 and substituted respondent no.6- Chandan Kumar of
M.A. No.414 of 2014. 50% of the compensation amount shall go to respondent
no.1 and 25% to the daughter (respondent no.2) and 25% to Chandan Kumar
(respondent no.6).
M.A. No.414 of 2014 is accordingly allowed, and M.A. No.363 of 2014
stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
The statutory amount, which was deposited before this Court at the
time of filing of this appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement
to the claimant, which will be adjusted against the compensation amount.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
