Disposed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Deputy Manager, Authorised Signatory v. Munni Devi

Jharkhand HC3 Sept 2024MA/255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against a motor accident award assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.40,000 from running four commercial vehicles, contending such fixed, inheritable business income is not loss of income. The court held that income generated by combining the deceased's skill with the assets is loss of income and declined to interfere.

What the court decided

AI extract

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Deputy Manager, Authorised… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.255 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office Rathor Mension, Bankmore, P.S. Bankmore, P.O. and District Dhanbad, through Deputy Manager, authorised Signatory, having its Office at Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District-Ranchi

¶4

…. …. Appellant(s)

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Munni Devi, wife of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo Dusadh

¶7

Rabi Kumar, Paswan Son of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo Dusadh

¶8

Neha Kumari, daughter of Late Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo Dusadh

¶9

Punoom Kumari, daughter of Chandradeo Paswan @ Chandradeo Dusadh

¶10

(Respondent Nos.3 to 4 are minors hence being represented through their Mother respondent No.1 being their natural guardian as their next friend). All resident at Qr No.84, Bhuli “E” Block, Sector-II, Near Shiv Mandir, Bhuli Nagar, Tiadaha, P.O. Bhuli P.S. Bankmore, O.P Bhuli, District Dhanbad

¶11

Md. Ajahar, Son of Najo Miya @ Jao Miay Resident of Ansar Nagar, Dhanbad 354, Bhuli, P.O. & O.P Bhuli, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanbad

¶12

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Adv. ----

¶16

04/Dated: 03^rd September, 2024

¶17

I.A No.6691 of 2024

¶18

1. Heard the parties.

¶19

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of 64 days in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal.

¶20

3. Considering the reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application, the same is hereby, allowed and accordingly, disposed of and the delay of 64 days in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal is hereby, condoned.

¶21

M.A. No.255 of 2024

¶22

1. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel has appeared before this Court on behalf of the respondents and has submitted that he has already filed vakalatnama on their behalf.

¶23

2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claim Case No.145 of 2018.

¶24

3. It appears that the deceased has died in a road accident on 05.12.2017, while driving a Maruti (Omni) Car bearing registration No.JH10BD-2139, which has collided with the offending vehicle i.e., Sumo Car bearing registration No.JH10Z-2400.

¶25

4. The others factors have not been disputed in the present miscellaneous appeal save and except the income:-

¶26

(i) That the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month showing source of income from the four vehicles, which were being run on the commercial basis.

¶27

5. This issue has been raised on the strength of the judgments which has been relied by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vrs. Yogesh Devi & Ors . reported in AIR 2012 SC 945 , specially paragraph Nos.11 & 13 and the judgment in the case of Rani Gupta & Ors. vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors . reported in AIR 2009 SC 3226, specially paragraph Nos.24 & 25.

¶28

6. On the strength of above judgments, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the fixed income or an income which is inheritable cannot be termed as loss of income . In the present case, vehicle was in the name of the deceased. The vehicle is still producing income and as such, there is no loss of income.

¶29

7. At best, the deceased’s income can be taken as maximum Rs.15,000/- per month as a “driver”. Thus, the grant of Rs.40,000/- as a loss of income on account of business loss, vis-à-vis four commercial vehicles are illegal and contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported hereinabove.

¶30

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has supported the Award and submission has been advanced by the learned counsel that the vehicle,

¶31

2 [M.A No.255 of 2024]

¶32

in question, is not capable of producing the income itself. A business has to be attracted. Business availability and capability is the main factors for generating income even through a fixed asset.

¶33

In the present case, the vehicles were being run on commercial basis and fetching commerce or client is a business skill. Utilising that business skill, the deceased was generating income for the family and as such, it requires no interference.

¶34

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a fixed income and inheritable income cannot be termed as loss of income. Combining the labour or skill of the deceased with the asset is the reason for generating the income, then it has to be termed as a loss of income and in the present case this factor has been well considered by the Court below/Tribunal.

¶35

10. In view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of.

¶36

11. The statutory amount shall be remitted back to the Court below/Tribunal for release in favour of the claimant or the Insurance Company depending upon the factual matrix of the case.

¶37

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶38

Raja/Uploaded

¶39

3 [M.A No.255 of 2024]

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Deputy Manager, Authorised Signatory v. Munni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Deputy Manager, Authorised Signatory v. Munni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Noorullah Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Babu Lal Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Commissioner

Rajdeo Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand through Revenue Secretary

The National Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Assistant Manager Vs Kedar Nath Pandey

Shri Pramod Khosla Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Anr.

Jagdev Pandey Vs Mr Mukesh Chauhan