Dr. Krishna Kumar and Amit Kumar Sinha V. The New India Assurance Co. Limited

MA/255/2012

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Dr. Krishna Kumar and his son Amit Kumar Sinha against the New India Assurance Co. Limited, challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. The appeal was based on the argument that the Tribunal erred in calculating the notional income of the deceased, Urmila Devi, and in the rate of interest applied to the compensation. The accident, which resulted in the death of Urmila Devi, occurred when a truck collided with the car she was traveling in. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 4,19,304 as compensation, which the appellants contested, seeking a higher amount based on a different calculation of the deceased's notional income and an earlier start date for interest accumulation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798351 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G C JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV ANAND
• Keywords: Compensation; Contributory negligence; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Notional income; Interest on Award

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 255 of 2012 1. Dr. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Lal Krishna Prasad 2. Amit Kumar Sinha, S/o Dr. Krishna Kumar, Both R/o Bhabya Bhawan, House No. 493/H-2, Aryapuri, Ratu Road Ranchi, P .O.-Hehal, P .S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.- Ranchi …… Appellants Versus The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Sada Complex Transport Nagar, P .O. & P .S.-Korba Chhatisgarh, Divisional Office at Atmaram Bhawan, Radheshyam Lane, Main Road, Ranchi, P .O & P .S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi …… Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate --------- 15/Dated: 06/05/2015 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 05.09.2012, passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 96 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs. 4,19,304/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the closure of evidence i.e. 31.05.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.07.2007 Urmila Devi @ Urmila Sinha along with her husband and grand daughter were traveling in the Indica Car bearing registration No. JH-01R-7116. That at Tara Ghati, Truck bearing registration No. CG-04G-9414 dashed the said car. In the said accident the occupants of the car received injuries and Urmila Devi @ Urmila Sinha died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by her. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal failed to consider that the gross total income of the claimant-husband was Rs. 5,28,866/- per annum for the assessment year 2006-2007 i.e. financial year 2005-2006 and the deceased was the house wife, hence the compensation should have been computed on the basis of one third of the income of the husband, which comes to Rs. 1,76,288/- per annum. That the Tribunal has erred in law by assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 1,08,026/- and after deducting one third towards the personal expenses of the deceased calculated the notional income and awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,19,304/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 31.05.2010 i.e the date of closing of the evidence. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no fault or laches on the part of the claimant/appellant in prosecuting the case hence the interest on the award should have been fixed from the date of filing of the case. On the above ground it is urged that the compensation amount be enhanced on the basis of notional income of Rs. 1,76,288/- per annum. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The Tribunal has considered the income mentioned in Ext.-3/a wherein the gross total income of the claimant-husband has been mentioned as Rs. 4,24, 384/- from which 1,00,000/- has been deducted under Chapter 6A of the Income Tax and the net income has been computed at Rs. 3,24,384/-. The notional income of the deceased spouse has been fixed as one third of the said income of Rs. 3,24,380/- That the court had rightly assessed the dependency and the award does not require any interference by this court. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company that due to laches on the part of the appellant the case had lingered, hence, they are not entitled for interest on the award from the date of filing of the case. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order, it transpires that the court below has taken into consideration the gross total income as mentioned in Ext.-3/a, which is of the financial year 2006-2007 and the accident had taken place in July 2007. It is evident from Ext. 3/a the gross total income of the husband of the deceased was Rs. 4,24,384/- The court should have assessed one third of the said income after deducting the amount of tax paid paid on the said salary which was Rs. 48,260/- (i.e. Rs. 4,24,384-48,260) accordingly the net income comes to Rs. 3,76,124/-. One third of the said amount is notional income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 1,25,375/- from which one third is to be deducted as the amount which the deceased would have spent on personal expenses hence the actual income is to be computed at Rs. 83,585/- per annum. The deceased was aged 62 years, accordingly the multiplier applicable is 7 i.e. 83,585 x 7= Rs. 5,85095/-. The loss of dependency is assessed at 5,85095/- + loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium of Rs. 25,000/-= 6,10,095/- 20% of the said amount is to be deducted for the contributory negligence as held by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record consequently the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 4,88,076/- 6. On perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no laches on the part of the claimants in prosecuting the case. In fact they diligently prosecuted the case but the case had lingered due to non appearance of the owner/respondent No.1, whereafter the appellant/claimant took steps for substituted service on respondent No.1 by publication in newspaper. In the facts and circumstances, the respondent/insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,88,076 less Rs. 4,19,304 awarded compensation by the Tribunal which comes to Rs. 68,772/- with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the application on the enhanced amount of Rs. 68,772/- i.e. approximately Rs. 10, 5,000/- to be deposited before the Lok Adalat scheduled to held on 09 th May, 2015. On failure to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- (one lac five thousand) by 09.05.2015, the Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 9% on the said amount from 09.05.2015 till date of payment. 7. The judgment/order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent noted above and the appeal is allowed in part. 8. Let the matter be placed before the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 09.05.2015. (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Satayendra/­ "