Allowed

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

Jharkhand HC19 Jul 2021MA/299/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to claimants in a motor accident death case, applying a 40% future prospect enhancement from Pranay Sethi, correcting personal expense deduction for four dependents, and replacing conventional head settlement.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reassessed to Rs. 5,95,500; balance amount of Rs. 2,46,500 payable within three months with 5% interest from award date.

Lilmani Devi and Ors. Vs M S Sakeel Bano and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 299 of 2014

¶2

¶3

Lilmani Devi

¶4

Paro Kumari

¶5

Puja Kumari

¶6

Laxman Manjhi

¶7

...Appellant(s).

¶8

Versus

¶9

M.S. Sakeel Bano

¶10

The Manager, National Insurance Company, Ranchi 3. Kamakhiya Narain Singh … Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . Through: Video Conferencing -----For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate

¶11

10/19.07.2021: Heard the parties.

¶12

In this appeal the appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount which was awarded to the claimants in Claims Case No. 20 of 2007 passed by District Judge V cum Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag.

¶13

Counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased. He submits that the Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further submits that no enhancement on account of future prospect has been awarded to the claimants. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% enhancement on the compensation amount should be disbursed on account of future prospect. He further submits that on conventional head also only Rs. 9,000/- has been disbursed. In terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/-. He lastly submits that the Tribunal has awarded interest, from the date of award, which is incorrect and the claimant is entitled to get interest from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶14

Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that it is the deposition of the claimants themselves that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and in that view no court could have assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/-. He submits that assessing the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- when the claimants themselves has claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/per month, will be illegal. Since the claimants failed to produce any cogent evidence of earning of the deceased, the Court had considered the minimum

¶15

wages prevalent in 2006 (year of accident), and thereafter, had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500/- per month. So far as the future prospect is concerned petitioner being a daily wages labourer is not entitled to get future prospect. He submits that as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there is nothing to suggest that the daily wages labourer is entitled for future prospect. So far as the interest part is concerned, he submits that there was delay on part of the claimants which is apparent from the award itself and thus tribunal has rightly awarded interest from the date of the award.

¶16

After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned Judgment, I find that the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. BR. 14G 7482 is admitted. It is also not the case of any of the parties that there was a violation of the terms and condition of the policy. It is also admitted that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. The fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned, is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the appellant are the claimants. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it is not necessary for this Court to mention any details about the facts of the case.

¶17

Only the dispute, which has been raised by the parties has been dealt herein by this Court.

¶18

The first dispute which is raised is in respect of income of the deceased. So far as the Income of the deceased is concerned, I find that the witnesses have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000 per month. The Tribunal found that there is no cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and thus consider the rate of minimum wages during the relevant time and as per the tribunal the rate of minimum wages was Rs. 100 per day. Considering the aforesaid fact the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500/- per month for the purpose of calculation. I find no illegality in the aforesaid calculation.

¶19

The next bone of contention is the entitlement on account of future prospect. It is the case of the Insurance Company that in Judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) nowhere it has been mentioned that the daily wage earners are entitled for compensation on account of future prospect thus they are not entitled to receive the same. This Court cannot agree with the aforesaid contention. In the aforesaid Judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) nowhere it has been mentioned that the daily wage earners are debarred from receiving enhanced compensation on account of future prospect. Thus this Court feels

¶20

that the compensation amount needs to be enhanced. After applying the principle of future prospect as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the appellants are entitled to 40 % enhancement on the compensation amount.

¶21

The next bone of contention is the deduction on account of personal expenses. Admittedly, there are four dependents of the deceased. Since there are four dependents of the deceased, the deduction would be 1/4^th toward personal expenses and not 1/3^rd as done by the Tribunal.

¶22

The last contention is in respect of conventional head. In this case, I find that only Rs. 9,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of conventional head. The accident occurred in the year 2006. Thus, this Court is of view that Rs. 60,000/- would be sufficient on account of conventional head.

¶23

Considering what has been held above, the amount of compensation

¶24

needs to be reassessed. The calculation of compensation will be as under.

¶25

Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 2500/-

¶26

Annual income of the deceased Rs. 2500x12= Rs. 30,000/-

¶27

Annual income x multiplier of 17= Rs, 5,10,000/-

¶28

After deduction of 1/4^th as personal expenditure Rs. 5,10,000x

¶29

1/4^th =Rs. 1,27,500/-

¶30

Thus, the total income will be Rs. 5,10,000 - 1,27,500/- =

¶31

Rs. 3,82,500/-

¶32

Applying future prospect of 40 % in the total income, it comes to Rs. 3,82,500 + Rs. 3,82,500x40% = Rs. 5,35,500/-

¶33

After adding the amount allotted for conventional head, the total amount comes to Rs. 5,35,500+ Rs. 60,000 = Rs. 5,95,500/-

¶34

In view of above, the amount of Rs. 5,95,500/- is the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive.

¶35

The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,49,000/- as compensation whereas, as per this Court, the compensation amount will be Rs. 5,95,500/-. Thus the appellants are entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 2,46,500/-. This balance amount should be paid within three months from today, which will carry an interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date of the award till payment.

¶36

So far as the interest amount is concerned, I find that the Tribunal in para 7 has categorically held that the claim application was delayed by the claimants, thus the tribunal has awarded the interest from the date of award. I find no illegality in the aforesaid.

¶37

This application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶38

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶39

Rajnish/c.p. 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilmani Devi and Ors. v. M S Sakeel Bano 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

MD Javed Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Kumar Shukla Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Samsuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Birendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

The Principal Tender Heart Senior Secondary School Vs State of Jharkhand

Babulal Vs the Union of India through the Engineer in Chief and Ors.