Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Prabha Neel Sushma Kindo and Ors.

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2017MA/192/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dismissing Insurance Company's challenge to compensation calculation and liability. Court rejected appeal, upheld quantum considering pension and contractual income, and directed payment from statutory deposit.

What did the court decide?

Statutory deposit amount directed to be paid to claimant respondent No.1 on the forthcoming Lok Adalat date.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Prabha Neel… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A. No. 192 of 2015

¶3

¶4

National Insurance Company Ltd. …..Appellant -Versus-

¶5

Prabha Neel Sushma Kindo

¶6

Deepti Toppo

¶7

Priti Lalta Toppo

¶8

Ranjan Kumar Singh …. Respondents

¶9

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶10

For the Appellant : M/s. Alok Lal For the Respondents : M/s. Ashutosh Anand

¶11

6/ 01.12.2017. Heard learned counsel for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., and learned counsel for the claimant respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No.4 had refused to accept the notice issued by this Court, which was deemed to be validly served upon him. Even before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi, the owner, respondent No.4 had not appeared in spite of notice and the Tribunal had proceeded ex-parte as against the respondent No.4 herein.

¶12

The appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., (herein after referred to as the 'Insurance Company), has challenged the Judgment dated 26.9.2014, passed by the MACT, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 284 of 2012, whereby, upon adjudication of the case, the compensation amount of Rs.36,16,800/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% p.a., in favour of the complainants respondents Nos. 1 to 3, who are the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased, an Ex-Army man was the motorcycle rider on the date of accident, and he died due to the accident, said to be caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus in question. The claim case was filed claiming that the deceased being an Ex Army man, was getting the pension from the Government of India at Rs.8062/- per month, and he was also getting remuneration of Rs.16,875/- per month from his contractual work, as he was serving in Special Striking Force with Orissa Police after his retirement from Army. On the basis of the documents brought on record and proved by the claimants, it was found that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 44 years and 7 months, and that the deceased was getting the pension of Rs.8062/- per month from the Government of India and he was also receiving the remuneration of Rs.16,875/- per month for his contractual service with Orissa Police. On the basis of this income, the compensation to be awarded was calculated by the MACT below, which came to Rs.36,16,800/- and the same was accordingly, awarded with interest.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after his retirement, the appellant was serving only on contractual basis, but the

¶14

-2-

¶15

period for which he was employed on contract has not been brought on record and accordingly, the amount of compensation has been wrongly calculated applying the multiplier of 14, by the M.A.C.T. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the case and the Insurance Company had disputed the claim, stating that the valid documents of the vehicle had not been filed and accordingly, the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment of compensation. But even this objection was not entertained by the M.A.C.T. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T. cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the claimant respondents has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment, inasmuch as, the deceased husband of the respondent No.1, was an Ex Army man and after his retirement, he was working with the Orissa Police on contract basis. As such, each and every income of her deceased husband, whether pensionery or contractual, was very easily proved by the documents proved in the M.A.C.T. below, with respect to the same. Even the age of the deceased was very easily proved on the basis of the Identity Card of the deceased and it was found that at the time of his death, the deceased was aged 44 years and 7 months. Accordingly, giving the enhancement of 30% by way of future prospect, and applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation amount was calculated by the M.A.C.T below and there is no illegality in the same.

¶17

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the period for contract service was not proved, it is submitted by the learned counsel that in ordinary circumstance, the said contract was expected to continue for 14 more years, i.e., up to the age of 60 years at least. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the M.A.C.T below, applying the multiplier of 14 on this income also.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that the amount of compensation has been validly calculated by the M.A.C.T., taking into account the income of the deceased, which could very easily be proved on the basis of the documents brought on record. Even the age of the deceased could be very easily ascertained on the basis of the document on record, the deceased being an Ex-Army personnel. All the income of the deceased, either through the Government of India by way of pension or through his remuneration for the contractual service with Orissa Police, could be very easily proved. As such, I do not find any illegality in applying the multiplier of 14 to the remuneration amount also, inasmuch as, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 44 years, and there is nothing adverse to show that

¶19

-3-

¶20

the contractual service of the deceased could not have been continued up-till the age of 60 years. As such, I do not find illegality in the impugned Award.

¶21

The respondent owner of the vehicle had not appeared in the M.A.C.T. below in spite of notice and as such, the Tribunal had to proceed ex-parte against the owner. This Court also had issued notice to the owner, but the same has been refused and has been treated as validly served upon him. The impugned Judgment shows that the necessary documents were neither produced nor proved by the owner in the M.A.C.T. below. In that view of the matter, the liberty is given to the appellant, Insurance Company to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, to recover the amount of compensation from the owner, if so entitled.

¶22

The Registry is directed to make the payment of the statutory deposit made by the appellant to the claimant respondent No.1, who shall receive the amount on behalf her minor children as well, on the day of forthcoming National Lok Adalat to be held on 9^th December, 2017. Registry is directed to keep the cheque ready for making the payment. The claimant respondent No.1 shall appear on that day before the Lok Adalat for receiving the same. Let this matter be placed before the Lok Adalat to be held on 9^th December, 2017, for the aforesaid purpose.

¶23

There is no merit in this Miscellaneous Appeal, which accordingly, stands dismissed, with the directions / observation as above.

¶24

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

¶25

D.S./B.S.

National Insurance Company Limited v. Prabha Neel Sushma Kindo and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Prabha Neel Sushma Kindo and Ors.

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

Sushil Oraon Alias Binod Jee Alias Bhagat Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hareram Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Amal Kant Sinha Vs Water Resources Department

Dr Rekha Roy and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Manoranjan Prasad Sinha Vs Managing Committee Of Vivekanand Vidhya Mandir Through Its Secretary