Allowed

Kaiyum Ansari Alias Md Kaiyum Alias Chhotoo And Ors. v. Bhuneshwar Yadav And Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2021MA/565/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the quantum of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to claimants by recalculating income, applying multiplier, adding future prospect enhancement, and increasing conventional head damages based on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the compensation award was modified to Rs. 11,41,000/- with interest at 7% per annum.

Kaiyum Ansari Alias Md Kaiyum Alias Chhotoo And Ors… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A. No.565 of 2017

¶3

----

¶4

Kaiyum Ansari @ Md. Kaiyum @ Chhotoo

¶5

Afasara Khatoon

¶6

Nahida Parveen

¶7

Md. Mosahid Ansari

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

-versus-

¶10

Bhuneshwar Yadav

¶11

United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Rabindra Path, Near Old Bus Stand, P.S. Hazaribagh Town, Post and District Hazaribagh.

¶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. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate

¶17

¶18

4/ 23.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company 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 complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶19

2. The claimants, being aggrieved by the quantum assessed in award dated 7^th April, 2017 passed by the District Judge VIII-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal VIII, Giridih in M.V. Claim Case No.27 of 2011, have approached this Court by filing this appeal for enhancement.

¶20

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 as Rs.4000/- per month, which is on the lower side and also not in terms of the evidence on record. 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 Rs.10,000/-, towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded in place of Rs.70,000/-.

¶21

4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that there is no documentary evidence on record to suggest as to what is the income of the deceased, thus, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. He submits that the claimants should not have any grievance with respect to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

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 assessment of income of the deceased.

¶24

6. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/per month. Insurance Company denies the aforesaid fact. It is admitted that there is no documentary evidence showing the income of the deceased. Witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants, i.e., C.W.1 Kaiyum Ansari, C.W.2 Md. Akil and C.W.3 Md. Suleman @ Pappu, all have stated that the deceased used to sell vegetables. C.W.1 has also deposed that his wife used to sell vegetables and fruits of Rs.5000/- to 5500/- per month. This statement of the witnesses have not been controverted by the Insurance Company. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the deceased being a vegetable seller, it cannot be disputed that she was earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, assessment of income by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month is on the lower side. I hold the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month. So far as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 17 in this case.

¶25

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 age of the deceased is below 40 years. In this case, the deceased was 28 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. 8. So far as conventional head is concerned, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium 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 under the conventional head, which this Court also feels that the claimants are entitled to receive.

¶26

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

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

Sl.	Description	Amount
No.
1	Compensation taking into income as Rs.5,000/- per month by applying multiplier of‘17’ =5000 x 12 x 17	10,20,000.00
2	Less 1/4^thon account of personal expenses	2,55,000.00
3	Compensation amount after deducting personal expenses	7,65,000.00
4	Add 40% on account of future prospects	3,06,000.00
5.	Compensation after adding future prospects	10,71,000.00
6.	Add Compensation under conventional head	70,000.00
7.	Total Compensation after adding conventional head	11,41,000.00

¶29

11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,64,000/- as compensation. As per this Court, just and fair compensation will be Rs.11,41,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive a further amount of Rs.5,77,000/-. This amount of Rs.5,77,000/- will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment.

¶30

12. With the aforesaid modification in the award dated 7^th April, 2017 passed by the District Judge VIII-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal VIII, Giridih in M.V. Claim Case No.27 of 2011, this appeal stands allowed.

¶31

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶32

Kumar/Cp-02

Kaiyum Ansari Alias Md Kaiyum Alias Chhotoo And Ors. v. Bhuneshwar Yadav And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaiyum Ansari Alias Md Kaiyum Alias Chhotoo And Ors. v. Bhuneshwar Yadav 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

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

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

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

Durga Devi And Ors. Vs Deoghar Municipalty Thr Special Officer Deoghar

Fulmani Soren Alias Fulmani Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jairam Bahelia Vs the State of Jharkhand