Disposed

Usha Devi v. Dhuleshwar Saw

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2024MA/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement appeal in a motor accident death claim. The court revised the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income using the semi-skilled minimum wage notified for Jharkhand, recomputed compensation with future prospects and multiplier of 17 at Rs.18,33,933, and enhanced interest to 7.5% per annum following Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.18,33,933 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of filing claim application till payment.

Usha Devi Vs Dhuleshwar Saw — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M.A. No. 175 of 2024

¶3

1 Usha Devi Age 25 years W/O Late Rohit Kumar Saw

¶4

Risu Saw Age 6 years S/O Late Rohit Kumar Saw

¶5

Chandan Saw Age 3 years S/O Late Rohit Kumar Saw

¶6

Degni Devi Age 53 years W/O Bhekhlal Sav

¶7

Bhekhlal Sav age 58 years S/O Late Mahadev Sav

¶8

(Applicant No. 2 and 3 are being minor children of the deceased represented by their mother and natural guardian namely Usha Devi Appellant No 1)

¶9

All Resident of Village Laxmantunda and Post office - Laxmantunda and P.S.- Nimiaghat, District Giridih

¶10

… … Claimants/Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Dhuleshwar Saw S/O Mehani Saw

¶13

R/o Village Laxmantunda and Post office- Laxmantunda and P.S. – Nimiaghat, District Giridih (Registered owner of Bolaro No JH 10 AM-5664).

¶14

Raju Saw S/O Late Basudeo Saw

¶15

R/O Village Rangamati and P.O. Roshna tunda and P.S.- Nimiaghat, District Giridih (Registered Driver of Bolaro No JH 10 AM-5664) 3. ICICI Lombard General Ins Company Ltd, 1^st Floor, Lake View Tower, Kadru Bypass Road, Opp Canara Bank Doranda, PO + PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi 834002, National Insurance Company Ltd (Registered Insurer of Bolaro No JH 10AM5664).

¶16

… … Opposite Parties/Respondents

¶17

¶18

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶19

¶20

For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the Insurance Company : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

¶21

¶22

06 /14.08.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶23

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed for the following

¶24

reliefs:

¶25

"Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Award of Compensation passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No 04/2022 dated 8^th February, 2024 order passed by the Learned court of Mr Anand Prakash, Learned court of District Judge -II cum Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih, the appellants beg to move this memo of appeal for ENHANCEMENT of the said order."

¶26

3. The only dispute involved in the present case is in connection with quantum of compensation.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased who died in an accident which happened on 03^rd November 2021 was a mason and also a cultivator, but the learned Court has not assessed the income properly and has arbitrarily taken the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel who was appearing before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the opposite parties in the case.

¶28

5. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was working as mason and additionally, he had landed property, which he was cultivating. He has submitted that at least the minimum wages of a skilled worker ought to have been taken and mason comes under the category of skilled worker.

¶29

6. However, during the course of argument, no material as such has been brought to the notice of this Court that under the notifications issued by the State Government, the mason would fall within the category of skilled worker.

¶30

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has opposed the prayer and has submitted that at best the mason could be a semi-skilled worker and not a skilled worker as no evidence was led with regard to any special skills acquired by the deceased. He has referred to the notification issued by the Government of Jharkhand which was effective from 01.10.2021 and has submitted that under the semi-skilled category, the minimum wage was to the extent of Rs. 287.9 per day.

¶31

8. At this, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if the argument of the respondent- insurance company is taken into consideration and if the compensation is fixed considering the deceased under semi-skilled category, then also the amount of compensation as fixed taking the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- is not only without any basis, but is on much lower side. He submits that the compensation may be fixed by taking the employment of the deceased

¶32

¶33

under semi-skilled category. He also submits that the interest has been awarded @6% per annum which is also on much lower side.

¶34

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the notification which has been produced by the respondent- insurance company, this Court finds that the learned Court has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, but without referring to any basis for such assessment.

¶35

10. Considering the nature of employment of the deceased, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 287.9 (or Rs. 288/-) per day under the semi-skilled category which is apparent from the notification produced by the respondent -insurance company with respect to minimum wages, effective from 01.10.2021. The date of accident is 03^rd November 2021.

¶36

11. Consequently, the impugned order fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and the calculations made thereunder are required to be revised and just and fair compensation is to be fixed which is as follows:

¶37

Income	Rs. 89,856/-
(Notional Income semi-skilled)
[Rs.288/- x 26 = Rs. 7,488/-]
Rs. 7488/- x 12=
Minus (-) Income Tax	NIL
	Rs. 89,856/-
1/4^thtowards personal and living expenses as deceased was married	(-) Rs. 22,464/-
	Rs.67,392/-
Add (+) 40% Future prospect [as deceased was aged about 26 and working as Mason]	(+) Rs. 26,957/-
	Rs.94,349/-
Deceased was 26 Years of age	17 x Rs. 94,349/-
hence multiplier of 17
	Rs. 16,03,933/-

¶38

¶39

Funeral Expenses	(+) Rs. 15000/-
Loss of estate	(+) Rs. 15000/-
Loss of consortium	(+) Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = 2,00000/-
(total 5)
Total Compensation	Rs. 18,33,933/-

¶40

12. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Court has awarded interest @ 6% per annum but without referring to any bank rate of interest at the relevant point of time. However, this Court finds that in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment passed in the case of "Sarup Singh alias Ram Sarup Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and others" reported in (2023) 1 SCC 159, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted interest @ 7.5%.

¶41

13. Accordingly, the rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till the date of payment.

¶42

14. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶44

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶45

Pankaj

¶46

Usha Devi v. Dhuleshwar Saw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi v. Dhuleshwar Saw

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

Sabi Bibi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gyananand Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhash Kumar Tulsyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Rubeeya Khatun Alias Smt Rubiya Khatoon Vs Chetan Kumar Toyal

Jai Prakash Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumari Arpana And Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager And Anr.