Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented Thr The Authorized Officer Mr Kapil Kispotta v. Johara Khatoon And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2022MA/572/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held that despite lack of documentary evidence for income, the assessment was not erroneous and dismissed the appeal, advising the Tribunal to award 10% enhancement for future prospects based on the deceased's age.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited is refunded to the Insurance Company.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented Thr The… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 572 of 2016

¶2

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd..…

Appellant(s).

Versus

1. Johra Khatoon

2. Imtiyaj Ansari

3. Altab Ansari

4. Irfan Ansari

5. Ghanshyam Prasad Agarwal... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶11

For the appellant(s): Mrs.Sunita Ojha, Advocate. For respondent-owner: Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate.

¶12

08/04.07.2022:

¶13

From the record, it appears that the Legal Services Authority had contacted the claimants, but the claimants submitted before the authority that they do not require legal assistance, as they have already engaged their lawyer.

¶14

All the parties have been noticed and lower court records is also available, I am proceeding to dispose of this appeal finally.

¶15

This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 5^th September, 2016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in compensation Case No. 51/2014.

¶16

The only point, which has been raised by the Insurance Company, is with regard of income of the deceased. She submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed in absence of any documentary evidence. As per her, the income could not have been Rs.8,000/- per month, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years. Thus the only challenge is the quantum.

¶17

Since the dispute is very limited, I am not entering into other aspects of the claim case. The deceased was admittedly aged about 60 years. The evidence led by the parties suggests that the deceased was a hawker who was selling cloths door to door and while he was going in a cycle, the offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Van dashed the cycle, resulting in injury and later on, his death. C.W.1 has categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/per month at the time of accident. In cross-examination, she reiterated the aforesaid submission, but she stated that she could not produce any document in support of the said evidence. C.W. 2 in Examination-in-Chief narrated about the rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle. This is the only oral evidence available on record to prove the income of the deceased. Though there are no document in support of the income of the deceased, yet it cannot be lost sight of

¶18

-2-

¶19

that the deceased was not an unemployed. When the deceased was not unemployed, notional income could not have been the basis for calculating compensation. The Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,000/- per month, but the counsel for the appellant objects such assessment.

¶20

After going through the award, I find that even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- per month is on much higher side, yet the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation on account of future prospect cannot be lost sight of which the claimants are entitled to receive as per the judgment of Hon'bler Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Since the deceased was in the age group of 51-60, 10% enhancement should have been awarded on account of future prospect. Further, I find that under the Conventional Head, only a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been awarded in place of 70,000/-. Rs. 6,43,000/- has been awarded as total compensation, which cannot be said to be an exorbitant amount.

¶21

Thus, I find no ground to interfere with the award, which has been challenged only on the ground of quantum. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶22

The statutory amount, so deposited, should be refunded to the Insurance Company.

¶23

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶24

Anu/-CP.2

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented Thr The Authorized Officer Mr Kapil Kispotta v. Johara Khatoon And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented Thr The Authorized Officer Mr Kapil Kispotta v. Johara Khatoon 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

Gopal Paul Murtiwala And Anr. Vs Sheo Kumar Arora

Ahmad Mian and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nimai Ghosh Vs Anil Singh

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.