Allowed

Roshan Ara Begam And Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2022MA/20/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident death compensation awarded to claimants. Correcting the multiplier based on age proof from an admit card, the Court applied the 50% future prospects enhancement mandated by Supreme Court precedent and ordered the balance payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation forfeited to be paid to claimants within eight weeks carrying 7% interest from 30.9.2015.

Roshan Ara Begam And Ors. Vs The Oriental Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A No. 20 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Roshan Ara Begam

¶5

Nishat Parveen

¶6

Asim Zaffar …. …. Appellant(s).

¶7

Versus

¶8

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Bokaro Division

¶9

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal

¶10

Shashi Kumar Munda …. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶13

-----For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate

¶14

9/05.07.2022

¶15

By filing this appeal the claimant has prayed to enhance the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the District Judge-III-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 8 of 2009.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has raised one small issue in this appeal wherein they have prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation. It is the case that no enhancement has been awarded on account of Future Prospects in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi & Ors . reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Since the deceased was Headmaster in School and had a permanent job and was less than 40 years of age, 50% enhancement should have been awarded on account of Future Prospects. He further submits that Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 14 in place of 15 when there are documentary evidence to suggest that the deceased was aged less than 40 years at the time of death. He lastly submits that interest has been only awarded till the date of the award which should have been till the amount is paid.

¶17

Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that as per the post-mortem report the age of the deceased assessed was 42 years, thus multiplier was correctly applied as 14 in the instant case. He further fairly submits that compensation has to be calculated and assessed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra).

¶18

Considering the limited scope of this appeal, I am not entering into the other aspects which have not been raised and argued by the parties. The fact of accident, the fact that vehicle was insured, liabilities etc have not been questioned in this appeal.

¶19

The claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.7500/- per month. This fact has been accepted by the court and has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. The multiplier applied in this case is 14. The Tribunal has considered the age which was assessed by the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. Doctor opined that the deceased was of 42 years.

¶20

-2-

¶21

While I go through the Lower Court Records, I find that Exhibit-5 i.e Admit card of the deceased was issued by the Bihar State Examination Board wherein date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 2.6.1969. This Admit Card definitely has got an evidentiary value. The date of birth has been mentioned in the admit card which was issued long time back, is certain proof of age and date of birth. Thus I hold that Tribunal has wrongly rely on the post-mortem report while assessing the date of birth. The age of the deceased thus as per the Admit Card is less than 40 years. Considering the age of the deceased to be less than 40 years, the multiplier in the instant case will be 15 and not 14.

¶22

From the impugned judgment it is clear that the Tribunal has not enhanced the amount of compensation considering the “Future Prospect”. The deceased was a school teacher thus was in a permanent salaried job getting Rs.7500/- per month. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) claimants are entitled for an enhancement @ 50% on the compensation amount on Future Prospect.

¶23

So far as the interest is concerned, I find that 8% interest has been awarded to the claimants from the date of the filing of the claim application till the date of the award. The award is dated 30.9.2015. Counsel for the appellants fairly submits that to satisfy the award the cheque was issued on 4.4.2016. Thus, the amount was satisfied within six months from the date of the award. Considering the fact that 8% interest has been awarded, I am not inclined to pass order to pay interest for the period of six month.

¶24

Considering what has been held above the amount of compensation will be recalculated as follows:-

¶25

Rs.7500/- X 12 X 15(Multiplier)=Rs.13,50,000/-

¶26

Rs.13,50,000/- -1/3(Dependency)= Rs.9,00,000/-

¶27

Rs.9,00,000/- +50% (Future Prospects)= Rs.13,50000/-

¶28

Rs.13,50,000/-+ Rs.70,000/-=Rs14,20,000/-

¶29

The tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,65,000/-.The balance amount thus comes to Rs.5,55,000/-. This balance amount should be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants within eight weeks from today. This balance amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the award which is 30.9.2015, till the same is paid.

¶30

Accordingly the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶31

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶32

anjali/cp2

Roshan Ara Begam And Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Ara Begam And Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ferasat Hussain Vs Hardyal Singh And Anr.

Chinta Devi and Anr. Vs Rakesh Kumar Naik and Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Through Assistant Manager Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Rameshwar Lohra And Ors.

Arjun Ram Mahli Vs Shayam Devisut Chobey And Ors.

Madhai Pandit And Anr. Vs Bisakha Pandit

Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Reprr Thr Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Pushpa Orain And Ors.