Dismissed

Asraf Khan And Ors. v. Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2012MA/43/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this compensation case arising from a motor accident, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal filed by the legal heirs against the Single Judicial Magistrate's award. The court upheld the quantum of compensation determined based on the deceased being a non-earning college student and approved the multiplier of 13 and notional income of Rs. 15,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellants against the compensation award dated 17.08.2007 is dismissed.

Asraf Khan And Ors. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A. No. 43 of 2008

¶3

Asraf Khan

¶4

Farjana Begum

¶5

Fatma

¶6

... ... … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Tata Motors Ltd.

¶9

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.... ... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate

¶12

Order No. 06 Dated 5th September 2012

¶13

Order

¶14

By Court With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard for final disposal at this stage.

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the claimants, against the award dated 17.08.2007 passed in Compensation Case No. 138 of 2006 by Additional District Judge-III-Cum-M.A.C.T., East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur directing the New India Assurance Company Limited to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- to the applicants within one month of this order failing which the insurance company will be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 18.08.2006 to the applicants.

¶16

The applicants case in brief is that on 11.04.2006 at about 11:45 a.m. the deceased was coming from Bhalubasa and was going to Mango. When he reached near Bhalubasa Chowk, a Tata Truck Chasis bearing registration No. JH05A-8950 dashed the scooter of the deceased. The said truck was being driven rashly and negligently with a high speed. Due to this accident, the deceased fell down on the road and the wheel of that truck crushed the body of the deceased.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was the only son of his parents and he was also looking after the dumper of his father, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not earning anything. It is further stated that the Court below has not considered the age of the father and has taken less number of multiplier which is only 13.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the deceased was a student of college, therefore, he is not a earning member. The Court below has taken notional income of 15,000/- (fifty thousand) per annum and multiplier of 13 for calculating the amount of compensation, which is quite reasonable. Therefore, nothing is there to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶19

From the impugned judgment, I find that the court below has rightly taken the multiplier of 13 as the parents are aged persons. Furthermore, the deceased was a college student and he has no earning.

¶20

Considering all these aspects, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶21

( Jaya Roy, J .)

¶22

Satayendra

Asraf Khan And Ors. v. Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asraf Khan And Ors. v. Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon  Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad  Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.