Kiran Devi and Rajesh Bouri and Chinta Kumari and Geeta Kumari and Urmila Kumari and Anjana Kumari V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Kishun Chandra Mahto and Mahabir Mahto

MA/159/2014

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous appeal by the claimants against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat. The appeal was filed due to dissatisfaction with the compensation amount awarded for the death of Badal Bouri, who died in a road accident caused by a tipper truck. The claimants argued that the compensation did not adequately reflect the loss and cited various Supreme Court judgments to support their claims for enhanced compensation. The Insurance Company, while agreeing to the indemnification of the original award, contested the delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent interest calculations. The High Court, after considering the submissions and relevant legal precedents, decided to enhance the compensation and set specific terms for the interest applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799668 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation
• Laws Referred To: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND LALL
• Keywords: Compensation; Delay in filing; Enhanced compensation; Interest on compensation; Motor Accident
• Section: 42; 30; 59(3); 59(8)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction) M.A. No. 159 of 2014 …... 1. Kiran Devi 2. Rajesh Bouri 3. Chinta Kumari 4.Geeta Kumari 5. Urmila Kumari 6. Anjana Kumari …… Appellants Versus 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd 2. Kishun Chandra Mahto 3. Mahabir Mahto .……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) For the Appellants Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ………. 09/Dated: 24/02/2021. I.A. No.3580 of 2014 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay of 418 days in preferring the appeal as the widow lady along with her minor children could not prefer the appeal within time and the reason has been mentioned in the Interlocutory Application and considering it to be a benevolent legislation where the compensation has not been just and fair, the delay may be condoned. learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that though the Insurance Company has indemnified the award passed by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.13,75,360/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 01.04.2008 till the date of indemnifying the award, as such, this delay if condoned by this Court, the unnecessary interest will accrue upon the Insurance Company for the laches on the part of the appellants. As such, delay may not be condoned and if it is condoned then interest may be considered after notice issued to the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has further submitted that because of the laches on the part of the claimants they are not entitled for interest from the date of indemnifying the award passed by the learned Tribunal till the date when the notice has been issued by this Court on 25.07.2018. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court also feels proper that after indemnifying the award, the miscellaneous appeal has been preferred after delay of 418 days for which Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability of the interest. Accordingly, this Court feels proper that delay shall be condoned with condition that claimants shall not be given any interest on the enhanced -2- amount, if any, from the date of indemnifying the award passed by the learned Tribunal till the date of issuance of notice on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 3580 of 2014 is hereby allowed. M.A. No. 159 of 2014 On the joint prayer of the parties matter be herded on merits. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall and learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. Manish Kumar. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants namely, (1) Kiran Devi, (2) Rajesh Bouri, (3) Chinta Kumari, (4) Geeta Kumari, (5) Urmila Kumari and (6) Anjana Kumari have preferred this instant Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned District Judge-1-cum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat in M.V. Claim Case No.35 of 2008, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.13,75,360/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 01.04.2008 till the date of actual payment jointly to the claimants. The award has been passed against the opposite no.1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that future prospect has not been given contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.3, which ought to have been 50%. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that multiplier of 15 has been wrongly used contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 42, which ought to have been 16, as the deceased died at the age of 33 years. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deduction towards personal and living expenses has been made 1/3rd which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) at para 30, whereby in case of six dependents deduction should be made as 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the conventional head Rs.15,000/- has been paid contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.8, which ought to have -3- been Rs.70,000/- i.e. loss of Estate to be Rs.15,000/-, for loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses to be Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been awarded @ 6% per annum from 01.04.2008 i.e. date of admission of the claim case to the date of actual payment which ought to have been @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC, wherein the Apex Court has considered the interest on the basis of prevalent bank rate of interest on the date of accident or the same has been quantified to be @7.5% simple interest per annum. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that it is old matter where the accident took place on 01.02.2008 and appeal has been preferred after delay of 418 days, which has already been condoned, as such, this Court may compute the compensation afresh. Considering the rival submission of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as the quantum of compensation has been assailed by the claimants, as such, this Court is inclined to compute the compensation afresh, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 which may profitably be quoted hereunder:- “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” The admitted fact of the case is that the deceased (Badal Bouri) was a permanent employee of CCL as P.R. worker, who lost his life, while going to his duty at C.C.L. Dhori on 01.02.2008 at 2.00 P.M. because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tipper (Dumper) bearing registration No.JH10P-1420, beyond control by driver and dashed Badal Bouri causing serious injuries, who died at the spot leaving behind his six dependents. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that income -4- is not under dispute, which has been considered to the tune of Rs.11,753/- per month, as such, this Court also considers that the income of the deceased to be Rs.11,753/- per month as the annual income is less than taxable income tax slab. Deceased was a permanent worker and died at the age of 33 years, as such, 50% future prospect be added in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at para 59.3. This Court is also of the opinion that in the present case in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Surpa) deduction towards personal and living expenses shall be 1/4th . So far multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased was 33 years and multiplier of 16 is applicable, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Under the conventional head, claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Setthi (Supra) para 59.8 i.e. loss of estate as Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium as Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/-. Further the interest ought to have been @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal (Supra). As such, the final computation of compensation is as follows:- Income Rs.11,753/- per month Annual Income Rs.11,753/- x 12 = Rs.1,41,036/- Future Prospect Rs.1,41,036 /- + Rs.70,518/- = Rs.2,11,554/- 1/4th Deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs.2,11,554/- minus 1/4th of Rs.2,11,554/- = Rs.1,58,666/- Multiplier of 16 (as the deceased was in the age group of 26-30 years) Rs.1,58,666/- x 16 = Rs.25,38,656/-. Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Amount Rs.25,38,656/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.26,08,656/- The entire amount which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 01.04.2008 till the actual date of indemnifying the award. However, the amount already paid by the Insurance Company in terms of award passed by the learned Tribunal shall be deducted and -5- balance enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 25.07.2018 i.e. when the notice was issued by the Court to the Insurance Company till the actual date of indemnifying the award within a reasonable time as unfortunate accident is dated 01.02.2008. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed. (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S "