Jharkhand High Court
Dr.Nawal Kishore Prasad & Anr vs Sardar Balwinder Singh & Ors on 10 March, 2016
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 137 of 2011
1. Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, son of Late Rameshwar Dayal
2. Smt. Bala Prasad, wife of Dr. N.K.Prasad
Both are residents of Aakanksha Enclave, Harihar Singh Road,
PO- Ranchi University, PS- Bariyatu, District- Ranchi
... Appellants
-V e r s u s-
1. Sardar Balwinder Singh, son of Avtar Singh
Resident of C-22B, Nehru Ground, NIT, PO & PS Faridabad (Haryana)
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager,
T.H. Floor, Akashdeep, PO Jamshedpur, PS-Sakchi, East Singhbhum
3. Ranjeet Singh, son of Late S.Singh
Resident of 48, Jakaria Street, Calcutta (West Bengal)... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the respondent no.2:- Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
-----------
C.A.V. ON 04.02.2016 PRONOUNCED ON-10/03/2016
The claimants/appellants herein challenge the Judgment/Award
passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ranchi dated 7th day of April, 2011 in Compensation Case no. 35 of 2001
whereby and whereunder the Claim Tribunal has directed the present
respondent no.2- the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the just
compensation of Rs. 1,96,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of closing of the evidence of the claimants i.e. 12.05.2008 within the
period of 60 days failing which the Insurance Co. would have to pay interest
@ 8% per annum till its payment.
2. The claimants in the present case are the father and mother of
the deceased Sampoorna Chandra, who died on 14.06.2000 at about 10:30
a.m. while he along with his friend were going to Mahalaxmi Fibre Mill,
Ormanjhi on a scooter bearing registration no. BPY- 551 and when they
reached near Delatoli on NH-33, a Gas Tanker (Ashoka Leyland) bearing
registration HR-29B-7835, which was being driven rashly and negligently in
uncontrollable speed by its driver dashed against the scooter from back side.
The deceased Sampoorna Chandra, who was a pillion rider, fell on the road
and crushed under the wheels of the said gas tanker and died on the spot.
On the fardbeyan of Nirmal Krishna Chandra, the brother of the deceased,
Sadar P.S. Case no. 98 of 2000 dated 14.06.2000 was instituted under
Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304(A) of the I.P.C. against the driver of the said
tanker. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination
to RMCH, Ranchi where the doctor after autopsy found ante-mortem injures
2
on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance and the
death was caused due to the said injuries. After investigation, the police
submitted the charge sheet against the driver Ranjit Singh of the said tanker.
The deceased on the said fateful day was aged about 24 years and was
unmarried with a brilliant career as a first class engineering degree with
distinction and he was awarded degree only in the month of January, 2000.
As pleaded, the deceased was looking for a job and was also interested in
further education for his bright future. It was further pleaded that accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending gas
tanker. The appellants, who are the old father and mother, claimed a
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. After notice by the Claim Tribunal, the Insurance Co. appeared
and filed written statement but neither the owner nor the driver of the
offending tanker appeared in court or filed any written statement and so, the
case proceeded exparte against them. The Insurance Co.-the opposite party
no.2 in the written statement filed in the court below denied the claim of the
claimants on the ground that though the vehicle in question was insured with
the Insurance Company on the relevant date but the claim application was
bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and
insurer of the offending scooter were not impleaded as parties. The further
pleading was that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent
driving of the scooter by the driver and since there was a contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending scooter also, they are
equally liable to pay the compensation amount and the amount claimed by
the claimants is highly excessive.
4. The Claim Tribunal after appreciating the evidences and
pleadings of both the parties, allowed the compensation as indicated above
but being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have
preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned
Judgment/Award as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that the
Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was an engineering
graduate with distinction and the entire future of the deceased was bright
and prosperous but the court below without considering the future prospect
of the deceased decided the compensation as just compensation by
computing the compensation on "notional income" of the deceased. It was
also submitted that the court below besides computing the compensation on
the basis of the notional income has awarded only Rs.2,000/- as funeral
3
expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate of the deceased, which is
against the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another;
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and the subsequent judgments Rajesh and others Vs.
Rajbir Singh and others; (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari and
others Vs. Madan Mohan and another as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65
and also failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased.
6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel Mr.
D.G.Ghosh appearing for the opposite party no.2- The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited in support of the impugned Judgment/Award contended
that the just compensation award by the court below does not need any
interference as it is based on the proper appreciation of the settled law and
as the deceased died when he was unemployed, the question of future
prospect cannot be considered in computing the compensation amount.
7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned
counsels, it is necessary to examine the word "just compensation", which has
been explained in Sarla Verma (Smt.) case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has explained the expression "just compensation" holding that the
compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become "just compensation"
merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. "Just compensation" is
adequate compensation, which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result wrong,
as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to
award of compensation. Now, I would like to examine the amount of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to see as to whether the said
amount comes within the purview of "just compensation" or not.
8. Apparently, the court below on the basis of the evidences
adduced by the complainants came to the findings that the deceased
Sampoorna Chandra died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending tanker and held that the Insurance Co shall be
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Claim Tribunal further
held that the deceased was aged about 27 years on the fateful day but relied
on the notional annual income of Rs,36,000/- of the deceased for
computation of the total compensation amount i.e. @ Rs.3,000/- per month.
The deceased was an engineering graduate but on the fateful day, he was
not employed anywhere. The Insurance Co. has not brought any document in
rebuttal to show that the deceased was not an engineering graduate as
pleaded by the claimants. In the case Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New
4
India Assurance Company Limited and another; (2010) 10 SCC 254,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue relating to award of
compensation to the appellant of that case, who had suffered grievous
injuries in a road accident and on the date of accident, the victim was 25
years old and was student of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) held in
paragraph 13 to 15 as follows:-
"13. The appellant at the time of accident was a final year
Engineering(Mechanical) student in a reputed college. He was a
remarkably brilliant student having passed all his semester
examinations in distinction. Due to the said accident he suffered
grievous injuries and remained in coma for about two months. His
studies got interrupted as he was moved to different hospitals for
surgeries and other treatments. For many months his condition
remained serious; his right hand was amputated and vision
seriously affected. These multiple injuries ultimately led to 70%
permanent disablement. He has been rendered incapacitated and
a career ahead of him in his chosen line of Mechanical Engineer
got dashed forever. He is now in a physical condition that he
requires domestic help throughout his life. He has been deprived
of pecuniary benefits which he could have reasonably acquired
had he not suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 70%
in the accident.
14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from
the prestigious institute like BIT, it can be reasonably assumed
that he would have got a good job. The appellant has stated in his
evidence that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as
well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of
Rs.3,50,000/- per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of
evidence in support thereof, there would not have been difficulty
from him getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he
decided to join government service and got selected, he would
have been put in the pay scale of Assistant Engineer and would
have at least earned Rs.60,000/- per annum. Wherever he joined,
he had a fair chance of some promotion and remote chance of
some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored
taking relevant facts into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair
and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs.60,000/- per
annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant
Engineer in public employment as the basis. Since he suffered
70% permanent disability, the future earnings may be discounted
by 30% and, accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the
multiplicand should be Rs.42,000/- per annum.
15. The appellant at the time of accident was about 25 years. As
per the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the
operative multiplier would be 18. The loss of future earnings by
multiplying the multiplicand of Rs.42,000/- by a multiplier of 18
comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. The damages to compensate the
appellant towards loss of future earnings, in our considered
judgment, must be Rs.7,56,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him
Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment including the medical expenses.
The same is maintained as it is and, accordingly, the total amount
of compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs.9,06,000/-
".
5
In the light of the ratio decided in the above case, the deceased,
who was a First Class engineering graduate from a reputed Engineering
College, would have put in the basic pay scale of Engineer even if he would
have decided to join government service, his annual income would have at
least Rs.60,000/- per annum and the deceased had a fair chance of some
promotion and remote chance of some high position and uncertainties of life
as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case cannot be
ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In my opinion, it is fair and
reasonable to assess the annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. The
deceased at the time of accident was about 27 years. As per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (supra), the operative
multiplier considering the age of the claimants would be 9 and above that the
future prospect is also to be considered. Apparently, the Claim Tribunal has
not considered the future prospect of the deceased while computing the
compensation amount. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) case (supra) as explained in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and others; (2012) 6 SCC 421 and Reshma Kumari
(supra) as well as the instant case, the compensation has to be reassessed as
follows:-
Sl. No. Heads Calculation
(i) Annual Income Rs. 60,000/-
(ii) 30 % of the annual income to be (Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 18,000)=
added as future prospects
Rs. 78,000/- per annum
(iii) 1/3rd of the total annual income (Rs. 78,000 - Rs. 26,000) =
deducted as personal expenses
Rs.52,000/- per annum
of the deceased
(iv) Compensation after multiplier of (Rs. 52,000 x 9)=Rs.4,68000/-
9 as the court below has
considered the claimants within
the age group of 55-60 years.
(v) For transportation of the body Rs. 5,000/-
(vi) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
(vii) Due to deprivation of love and Rs. 20,000/-
affection of their son
Total Compensation amount (Rs.4,68,000 + Rs.5,000 +
Rs. 10,000 + 20,000) =
Rs.5,03,000/-
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of
the court below is, hereby, set aside and it is declared that the total
compensation amount payable to claimants-appellants would be
6
Rs.5,03,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Three Thousand) only. This total
compensation amount after enhancement will carry interest @ 6 % per
annum as awarded by the court below from the date of filing of the claim
application till its realisation. The amount, which has already been paid to the
claimants-appellants, if any, shall be deducted from the total enhanced
compensation amount.
(R.N. Verma, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, 10th March, 2016
Ritesh/N.A.F.R.