Allowed

Devchand Mahto And Ors. v. Ms Chanani Transport And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2021MA/127/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced compensation for survivors of a motor accident victim. Applying National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, it directed a 40% enhancement for future prospects and reduced personal expense deduction to one-third, resulting in additional payment.

What did the court decide?

Balance amount of Rs. 3,35,800/- to be paid by insurance company with interest at 7.5% p.a., within three months.

Devchand Mahto And Ors. Vs Ms Chanani Transport And… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A No. 127 of 2016

¶3

Devchand Mahto

¶4

Yashoda Devi

¶5

Madhu Kumari

¶6

Priyanka Kumari

¶7

Navin Kumar …. …. Appellant(s).

¶8

Versus

¶9

M.s. Chanani Transport, I/C Dayanand Modi, Ramgarh

¶10

M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. , Ramgarh

¶11

Mehraj Ali …. …. Respondent(s)

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶14

¶15

FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate FOR THE RESPNDENT NO.1 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate

¶16

¶17

8/20.07.2021

¶18

In this appeal, the claimants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 35 of 2009.

¶19

The deceased who happens to be the son of the claimant nos. 1 and 2 and elder brother of claimant Nos. 3, 4 & 5 met with an accident involving a Dumper bearing No. BR 13G 0203 and succumbed to the said injuries. The entire facts are admitted by the parties as such I am not entering in the domain of the admitted facts. I am confining this order and the findings only in respect to the issues which are in dispute.

¶20

The claimants have submitted that the compensation on account of future prospects has not been granted to them. He further submits that admittedly the deceased was working as Supervisor and on that ground the compensation needs to be enhanced by 40% interms of the judgment of the National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors . reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He further submits that 50% was deducted on account of personal expenses, but interms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, since there were younger siblings of the deceased 1/3rd should have been deducted on account of personal expenses. He submits that on conventional head Rs. 70,000/- has to be granted.

¶21

Counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company submitted that the amount has correctly been assessed taking the salary of the deceased which was admitted by the parties. He submits that there is no scope of interference in the aforesaid award.

¶22

-2-

¶23

The only dispute in this case is that whether the compensation has to be enhanced after granting the benefit of future prospects of the deceased and whether the deduction on account of personal expenses should be 1/3rd or half.

¶24

Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor. Admittedly he has left behind three minor siblings. Out of them two are the girl child. Considering the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) and applying the same, this Court is of the view that 1/3rd should have been deducted on account of personal expenses and not half as has been done by the Tribunal. Further I find that deceased was 19 years admittedly he was working as a Supervisor. Since he was working, he had future prospects. This concept of future prospects has not been taken note by the Tribunal. In terms of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) there should be enhancement of 40% on account of future prospects. So far as conventional head is concerned I find that Rs.70,000/- has not been awarded in this case. Thus the appellants are entitled for an enhancement on that account also. The appellants are entitled to receive of Rs.70,000/- on account of conventional head. Now if the compensation is reassessed, the just and fair the compensation would be as follows.

¶25

Rs.3000/- x 12x18=Rs.6,48,000/-

¶26

Rs.6,48,000/- - 1/3=Rs.4,32,000/Rs. 4,32,000/- + 40%= Rs. 6,04,800/-

¶27

Rs. 6,04,800/- + 70,000= Rs.6,74,800/- .

¶28

The aforesaid amount is just and fair compensation which the claimants are entitled to receive.

¶29

The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,39,000/-. Thus the claimants are entitled to balance the amount of Rs. 3,35,800/-.

¶30

It has been submitted that the entire awarded amount has been paid on 31.12.2015. Therefore I direct the United India Insurance Company to pay the balance amount Rs. 3,35,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of settlement of issue i.e 24.5.2014 till the date of payment. It is expected that balance amount should be paid within a period of three months from today.

¶31

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

¶32

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶33

anjali/ C.P 3

Devchand Mahto And Ors. v. Ms Chanani Transport And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devchand Mahto And Ors. v. Ms Chanani Transport And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

The Principal Tender Heart Senior Secondary School Vs State of Jharkhand

Lilmani Devi and Ors. Vs M S Sakeel Bano and Ors.

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. Vs Kusum Prakash And Anr.

Vidyalal Begin Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Smt Meera Devi and Ors. Vs Smt Namita Devi and Ors.