Ashiya Khatoon and Anr. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

¶1

2025:JHHC:10440

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.19 of 2015

¶3

------

¶4

Ashiya Khatoon, W/o Md. Hafiz

¶5

Gudia Bano, D/o Md. Hafiz, represented through her mother- Ashiya Khatoon All resident of Village-Mahthadih, P.O.-Chaitadih, P.S.-Giridih(M), District-Giridih (Jharkhand)

¶6

.... .... …. Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The United India Insurance Company Limited, registered and head office-United India House 24 white House Road, Chennai-600014 having insured and represented by its local.

¶9

Deleted

¶10

Alizan Ansari, S/o Suleman Ansari (Driver), R/o Village-Hutty Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Giridih (T), District-Giridih.

¶11

.... .... .... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Appellants	: Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
For the Insurance-Company	: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate ------

¶14

Order No. 21/ Dated :03.04.2025

¶15

The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of 50% permanent disablement suffered by Gudia Bano in motor vehicle accident involving Tata 407 Maxi bearing registration no. BR-23P-0672. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute, as no cross-objection or appeal has been filed regarding the finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the manner of accident. On 25.01.1999, Gudia Bano who was nine years at the time of accident, met with a motor vehicle accident involving Tata 407 Maxi bearing registration no. BR23P-0672 resulting in permanent disablement to the extent of 50%. It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the United India Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 1).

¶16

Right of recovery to the Insurance Company was allowed against the owner, as neither the owner nor driver of the said vehicle appeared before the Tribunal, to produce any relevant document regarding road

¶17

1

¶18

2025:JHHC:10440

¶19

permit and driving licence of the driver.

¶20

The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that lumpsum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded, whereas it was incumbent on the part of the learned Tribunal, to assess the compensation by taking the minimum wage payable to skilled workman at the time of accident i.e., on 25.01.1999 as held by the Apex Court in 2024INSC 963 Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr.

¶21

It is further contended that loss of income under the head of future prospects, attendant charges and loss under heading of pain and suffering has not been awarded separately. It is submitted that in view of the above ratio, to assess the income of the minor minimum wage to a skilled workman notification dated 21.12.1995 under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 issued by the Governor of the Bihar shall be applicable. As per this notification, minimum wage of skilled worker was Rs. 47.50/- per day at entry no. 70.

¶22

Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company has defended the impugned order, and submits that no evidence has been led to show that the claimant was a skilled worker. On the contrary, the evidence is that she was not a student and was grazing cattle at the time of accident.

¶23

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and considering the materials on records, it is evident that Gudia Bano sustained 50% disablement in the motor vehicle accident at the age of nine. Law has been expressly laid down by the Apex Court Baby Sakshi Greola (Supra) that in case of disability, the compensation has to be computed by taking the injured as a skilled workman. The notification produced on behalf of the claimants of the year 1995 as per the notification dated 21.12.1995 under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the minimum wage of skilled labour was Rs. 47.50/per day and taking 26 as the working day the monthly income will work out to Rs. 1235/-.

¶24

Further, claimant will also be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earning to the extent of 40%. The final compensation will work out as under: -

¶25

2

¶26

2025:JHHC:10440

¶27

Monthly Income = Rs.47.50 per day x number of working days taken as 26 in a month	Rs.1235/-
50% disability=50% of 1235	Rs.617.50/-
Annual loss of income=617.50x12	Rs.7410/-
Future prospect=40%	Rs.2964/-
Total	Rs. 10,374/-
Multiplier of 18 taking the age of the deceased to be 9	Rs. 10,374 x 18 = 1,86,732/-
Pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
Attendant Charges	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of Marriage prospects	Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Compensation	Rs. 3,86,732/-

¶28

Insurance-Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The payment shall be made within a month, from the date of this order by the InsuranceCompany to the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal will disburse to the claimant Gudia Bano who suffered permanent disablement in the accident. Claimant No.1 (Ashiya Khatoon) mother of the victim had joined the claim application, as the victim was a minor at the time of accident. After more than 20 years of the accident, as the victim has attained majority, therefore the entire amount will go to her and no separate compensation amount shall be paid to Claimant no.1.

¶29

So far as the right of recovery to the insurance company against the owner of the vehicle is concerned, that is not being interfered with. Miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶30

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

¶31

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

Pawan/-

¶33

3

Ashiya Khatoon and Anr. v. the United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashiya Khatoon and Anr. v. the United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Babita Devi And Ors.

Most Meena Devi And Ors. Vs The Manager New India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors.

Anurag Jhawar Vs Sidharth Jhawar And Anr.

Mostt.Rani Devi Vs Union of India through G.M.,Ea

Smt Lilawati Devi and Others Vs Md Afzal And Another

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager And Anr. Vs Bhim Das And Ors.