High CourtsSingle Bench

Reshmi Devi And Others vs Md. Shamshad And Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 31 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 JH CK 0067

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 219 Of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 533 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

1.

Appellants are the claimants, who have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Principal District Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in Claim Case No. 06/2007 under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Amar Kumar Raut in a motor vehicle accident.

2.

The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,53,500/- with interest @ 9% by accepting Rs 4000/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased working as a skilled labour, 1/3rd deduction on his personal and living expense, and multiplier of 17 taking his age to be 23 years.

3.

Appeal has been preferred on the ground that decease was a carpenter with a monthly income of Rs.5000/- but the Learned Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.4000/- per month. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence regarding the income of the deceased to be Rs.5000/- per month.

4.

The accident is of the year 2006 and the Tribunal has assessed the income on the basis of the evidence on record and the overall facts and circumstance of the case to be Rs.4000/- per month. I do not see any cogent reason to disturb the finding on the monthly income of the deceased. However, there is a case for enhancement of compensation in view of the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi; (2017) 16 SCC 680. The final compensation amount shall work out as per the table given below:

Annual Income Rs.4,000 x 12

Rs.48,000/-

Annual dependency after deducting 1/4th on the living and personal expenses of the deceased

Rs.36,000/-

Taking multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased to be 23 years

Rs.36,000 x 18 = Rs.6,48,000

Future Prospect @ 40%

Rs.2,59,200/-

Conventional head

Rs.77,000/-

Total

Rs..9,84,200/-

The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.9,84,200/- with interest @ of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application. In view of the findings of the Tribunal regarding composite negligence in the ratio of 50% each on O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.4, they will be liable to pay compensation to the claimants in the ratio of 50% each. Both O.P. Nos.3 and 4 are directed to make the full payment to the Tribunal within a month of the order. It goes without saying that any amount earlier paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the final award.

The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants after verification in the manner given below:

A. 50% of the total compensation amount to be paid to Claimant no.1

B. 15% of the compensation amount to be paid to each to the claimant nos.2 and 3 jointly with claimant no.1.

C. 20% of the total compensation amount to be paid jointly to the claimants jointly 4 and 5.

D. In case of claimant nos.2 and 3, if they are minor, the amount shall be fixed deposited for a term till they attain age of 21 years.

The appeal is allowed as at above.