United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shahnaz Khatoon And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants..

The appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this Misc. Appeal against the award dated 31.01.2017 passed by learned District Judge-XIV-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Case No.90 of 2015, whereby, the claimants/respondents have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.13,42,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its payment.

Learned counsel appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the contributory negligence has not been considered by the learned Tribunal though as per the First Information Report, the deceased (Mustakim Ansari) was on the scooter as pillion rider which met with an accident after head on collision with the pickup van bearing Registration No.JH11C-4838.

Learned counsel appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award on the further ground that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on the excess side. Admittedly, the deceased (Mustakim Ansari) was working as Carpenter and his income has been assessed to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month without any evidence, as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month.

Learned counsel appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award on the further ground that 50% Future Prospect has been given by the learned Tribunal which ought to have 40%, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, as the deceased was a self- employed person, aged about 30 years.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award on the further ground that multiplier of 17 has been applied by the learned Tribunal though the post-mortem report shows that the deceased was aged about 30 years, as such, the multiplier of 16 ought to have been considered.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company on the above four grounds has submitted that computation of compensation should be revised by this Court, in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639, at para 8.

Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no such issue was framed before the learned Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence. A point which has not been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to agitate without leave of the Court. Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents has further submitted that contributory negligence cannot be attributed against the deceased who was admittedly hit by a Pickup Van bearing Registration No.JH11C-4838.

Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents has further submitted that the deceased was admittedly a Carpenter and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered his income to be Rs.6,000/- per month, as he was a skilled person and as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian as reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is very difficult to bring any documentary evidence of income of the person who are working like a Carpenter and considered the income of Rs.5,000/- per month. In the case of claimants, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month, in view of minimum wages fixed by the Government of Jharkhand for a skilled labourer in the year, 2010, as such, the same is not an erroneous finding and does not require any interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has further replied on the ground of Future Prospect of the deceased which has been calculated at the rate of 50% instead of 40%. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has fairly submitted that under the conventional head, the amount of Rs.15,000/- has been granted, instead of Rs.70,000/- though the claimants have not preferred any appeal, but in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. (Supra), this Court may not deduct the excess amount paid under the Future Prospect as the same will also entitle this Court to enhance the amount by Rs.55,000/- as amount under conventional head as the same is required to be paid to the extent of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- for consortium) in view of the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has further submitted that though the claimants have not preferred any appeal, but the interest has been awarded @ 6% by the learned Tribunal which ought to have been 7.5% per annum, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008(4) JCR 79 SC.

Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has further submitted that multiplier of 17 has rightly been considered by the learned Tribunal as the Apex Court has held that in the case the deceased died between the age of 26 to 30 years, the multiplier should be 17 and as per the post-mortem report the deceased was of 30 years which cannot be considered to be 31. The age assessed during the post-mortem is an assessment which is subject to plus minus two years in favour of the claimants/deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has thus, submitted that this Court has all the powers to revise the rate, but it would be proper if this Court may maintain the impugned award without any interference, as the same is not going to prejudice the appellant-Insurance Company.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. (Supra) this Court must compute the compensation considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2019 in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian as reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC,which shall be multiplied with 12. Thus Rs.5,000x 12=Rs.60,000/- and 40% under the Future Prospect is to be enhanced, as such, total comes to Rs.84,000/- then ¼th deduction as personal and living expenses, then it comes to Rs.63,000 and after multiplying 17 it comes to Rs.63,000 x 17 total Rs.10,71,000/- and Rs.70,000/- under conventional head shall be added thereby total comes to Rs.10,71,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.11,41,000/-which shall be payable to the claimants along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application within a period of 90 days from today. However, the amount already paid by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

Detail chart of the compensation amount:-

Income

Rs.5,000/- (Per Month)x 12=Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/- (yearly income)

Future Prospect i.e. 40%

Rs.60,000/- (yearly income)+ Rs.24,000/-= Rs.84,000/-

Deduction as personal and living expenses i.e. 1/4th

Rs.84,000- Rs.21,000/- = Rs.63,000/-

Multiplier 17

Rs.63,000/- x 17= Rs.10,71,000/-

Conventional Head

Rs.70,000/-

Total amount of Compensation

Rs.11,41,000/- Along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is Allowed.

The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award within 90 days. The amount already paid shall be deducted and balance amount be paid as per calculation made above.

Registrar General of this Court is directed to refund the statutory amount to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of requisition before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant.