Allowed

Smt Meera Devi and Ors. v. Smt Namita Devi and Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2021MA/274/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The High Court held that the deceased's income was Rs.6,000 monthly (not Rs.4,000), the multiplier should be 17, and 40% enhancement for future prospects plus Rs.70,000 for conventional head was mandated, directing recalculation of total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award directed to be modified to pay total compensation of Rs.13,55,200 with 6% interest from date of original award.

Smt Meera Devi and Ors. Vs Smt Namita Devi and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.274 of 2014

¶2

----

¶3

Smt. Meera Devi

¶4

Amar Rajwar

¶5

Shobha Kumari

¶6

Smt. Shakuntala Devi

¶7

… Appellants -versus-

¶8

Smt. Namita Devi

¶9

Sri Uday Kumar Tiwari

¶10

Sunil Rajwar

¶11

United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Buxidih Road, P.S. Giridih (T), Post and District Giridih

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

----

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Debesh Chandra Ghosh, Advocate

¶18

¶19

8/ 22.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10.30 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶20

2. The claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 26^th May, 2014 in Title (M.V.) Suit No.44 of 2010 passed by the District Judge-cumMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.III, Giridih, have approached this Court by filing this appeal.

¶21

3. Counsel for the claimants submits that he is challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4000/per month inspite of specific unrebutted evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-. He submits that multiplier of 15 has been applied by the Tribunal in place of multiplier 17. He also submits that no compensation on account of future prospect has been awarded while computing the compensation. Further, he submits that under the conventional head, 10,000/has been awarded in place of Rs.70,000/-. He lastly submits that interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the award and not from the date of the claim application.

¶22

4. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased

¶23

-: 2 :-

¶24

was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, thus, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. He further submits that so far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has applied 15, which should not be interfered with. On the point of interest, he submits that the record will suggest that it is the claimants, who had taken several adjournments, which delayed disposal of the claim case, thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the interest from the date of the award. He submits that the claimants should not have any grievance on the point of payment of interest, which has been awarded from the date of the award, and the compensation so awarded. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the only dispute is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured and there was no violation of the insurance policy is an admitted fact, which is apparent from the award itself. Dependency is also not disputed. Now in view of the aforesaid fact, I am not dealing in detail about those aspects. I am confining myself only to the quantum and the income of the deceased.

¶25

6. The claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Insurance Company denies the aforesaid fact. It is admitted that there is no documentary evidence showing the income of the deceased. C.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. In paragraph 9, she has clearly stated that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6000/- per month as he was a skilled mason. She also stated that his income was on the rise. C.W.2 is one Kuldeep Rajwar, who also stated that the deceased was 30 years of age, was skilled mason and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and he (C.W.2) also used to get Rs.150/- per day, whereas deceased used to get Rs.225/- per day. On the date of accident, they were erecting a boundary wall in the plot of one Rajendra Sao. C.W.3 is Dinesh Rajwar. He also stated that he had an opportunity to work with the deceased and the deceased was earning Rs.230/- per day. This statement of the witnesses have not been controverted by the Insurance Company, nor any question was put in the cross examination challenging the aforesaid statement. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the deceased was a skilled mason and C.W.2 and C.W.3 had opportunity to work with him. Since deceased was skilled mason, it cannot be disputed that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, assessment of income by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month is incorrect. I hold the income of the deceased to be

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

Rs.6,000/- per month. So far as multiplier is concerned, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was 30 years of age. Oral evidence suggests so. The postmortem report, which is Exhibit 5, also suggests the age of deceased as 30 years. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , if deceased is aged 30 years, multiplier of ‘17’ has to be applied. Thus, the correct multiplier, in this case, will be ‘17’ and not ‘15’ as decided by the Tribunal.

¶28

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case of accident and death of a self-employed person, 40% enhancement is to be granted to the claimants on account of future prospect when the deceased is below 40 years. In this case, the deceased being 30 years of age at the time of accident, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants are entitled to get enhancement at the rate of 40% on account of future prospect.

¶29

8. So far as conventional head is concerned, an amount of Rs.10,000/- only has been granted by the Tribunal, whereas in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of Rs.70,000/- has to be awarded, which this Court also feels that the claimants are entitled to receive.

¶30

9. So far as interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that it is the claimants, who had taken adjournments on several times, which resulted in delay in disposal of the claim case, thus, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to award interest from the date of award. I find no illegality in the same.

¶31

10. Considering what has been held above, the amount of compensation needs to be recalculated, which will be as follows: -

¶32

Sl.	Description	Amount
No.
1	Compensation taking into income as Rs.6,000/- per month by applying multiplier of‘17’ =6000 x 12 x 17	12,24,000.00
2	Less 1/4^thon account of personal expenses	3,06,000.00
3	Compensation amount after deducting personal expenses	9,18,000.00
4	Add 40% on account of future prospects	3,67,200.00
5.	Compensation after adding future prospects	12,85,200.00
6.	Add Compensation under conventional head	70,000.00
7.	Total Compensation after adding conventional head	13,55,200.00

¶33

11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation. As per

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

this Court, just and fair compensation will be Rs.13,55,200/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive a further amount of Rs.8,05,200/-. This amount of Rs.8,05,200/- will carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. 19. With the aforesaid modification in the award dated 26^th May, 2014 in Title (M.V.) Suit No.44 of 2010 passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.III, Giridih, this appeal stands allowed.

¶36

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶37

Kumar/Cp-02

Smt Meera Devi and Ors. v. Smt Namita Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meera Devi and Ors. v. Smt Namita Devi 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

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

Suchita Kerketta And Ors. Vs Kusum Prakash And Anr.

Birendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Soni Balmiki Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Shivji Ojha Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director