Allowed

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. v. Kusum Prakash And Anr.

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2021MA/24/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim, the High Court held that family pension cannot be deducted when computing compensation. The Court also denied future prospects as the deceased was a pensioner. Redetermining compensation to Rs. 11,17,438/-, the appeal was allowed with a direction to pay the balance amount. (219 chars)

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,17,438/- with a direction to pay the balance of Rs. 3,93,334/- within three months.

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. Vs Kusum Prakash And Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A No. 24 of 2016

¶3

Suchita Kerketta

¶4

Asbhini Kerketta

¶5

Ulima Kerketta

¶6

Anuradha Kerketta

¶7

Nishita Kerketta …. …. Appellant(s).

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kusum Prakash

¶10

The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ranchi …. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr.Arvind Kumar Lal, Advocate FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

¶15

¶16

11/20.07.2021

¶17

In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by Principal District Judge,-cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 31 of 2013.

¶18

The appellants are legal heirs of late David Kerketta, who died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 05 GA 9477 . The deceased was a pension holder of Border Security Force, Government of India. As the death was arising out of motor vehicle accident, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation. The Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased and considering the dependency and applying the multiplier, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,24,104/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment the claimants approach this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶19

Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has raised mainly two issues. His first issue to challenge the quantum is based on the fact that the Tribunal has deducted the pension which the deceased was receiving from his employer, while arriving at a conclusion as to what would be the just and fair compensation. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the deduction on the monthly pension which a person is receiving is not proper. The second ground which he has taken is the rate of interest which has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum, which according to the claimants should be much more.

¶20

-2-

¶21

He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors . reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the appellants are entitled for enhancement on account of Future Prospects.

¶22

Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that deceased was not an employee and nor he can be said to be a self-employed person, thus in view of the aforesaid judgement he is not entitled to get future prospect. He submits that the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3,75,000 /- on conventional head which is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) . He submits that in terms of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) only Rs. 70,000/was supposed to be paid under the aforesaid head. He submits that the quantum of compensation is just and proper which needs no interference.

¶23

After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 05 GA 9477 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was registered with New India Assurance Company Limited. The fact that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner is also not disputed. The dependency, the income and the applicability of the multiplier are also not disputed. Since all these facts are admitted, I am not dealing with the admitted facts in details in this case, I am only dealing with the controversy which was raised by the counsel for the appellants. There is no dispute on the age of the deceased also. So far as future prospects are concerned, I find that it is an admitted case of the appellants that deceased was a pensioner and was not working. In view of the aforesaid fact that the deceased was not working and was receiving only pension this Court feels that he is not entitled to get any enhancement on account of future prospects as the concept of future prospects is applicable where the deceased is employed permanently, self employed or temporary employed. So far as the deceased is concerned he was a pensioner and his pension is enhanced from time to time by the Central Government and the said benefit has already passed on, to the family of the deceased. In that view no future prospect is to be granted in the instant case.

¶24

-3-

¶25

The issue which falls for consideration is whether the pension which the deceased was receiving could have been deducted while computing the amount of compensation. This issue is no more res-integra. This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. Vrs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 and followed by subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Dei and Ors. Vrs. Himachal Road Transport reported in (2007) 8 SCC 319 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) (Supra) has held that the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service condition receivable by the heirs after his death. It has been held that heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants.

¶26

In the instant case admittedly the amount of family pension has been deducted while calculating the amount of compensation. This deduction is against the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts this Court holds that the deduction of 50% of Rs.8313/- is not proper which the appellants' family was getting as pension, while calculating the compensation. 9. So far as interest is concerned, I find no illegality in granting interest @ 6% p.a which needs no interference. Considering what has been held above the compensation needs to be re-fixed and just and fair compensation has to be assessed which according to this Court is hereunder:-

¶28

Rs. 8313/- x 12 x 14= Rs.13,96,584/-

¶29

Rs. 1,396,584/- - 1/4= Rs.10,47,438/-

¶30

Rs.1,047,438/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.11,17,438/-

¶31

As per this Court amount of Rs.11,17,438/- is the just compensation which the appellants are entitled to get. In this case the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,24,104/- as compensation. The appellants are entitled to get further amount of Rs.11,17,438/- - Rs.7,24,104/- = Rs.3,93,334/-. Thus the balance amount comes to Rs. 3,93,334/- which the appellants are entitled to receive.

¶32

-4-

¶33

I direct the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount within a period of three months from today. This balance amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of institution of the case till the payment is made.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶35

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶36

anjali/ C.P 3

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. v. Kusum Prakash And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. v. Kusum Prakash And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

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

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

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