Jharkhand High Court
Meena Rani Devi W/O Mahabir Prasad Mahto vs Santosh Kumar S/O Mahendra Prasad on 16 August, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.618 of 2016
----
1. Meena Rani Devi W/o Mahabir Prasad Mahto
2. Mahabir Prasad Mahato, S/o Late Upendra Nath Mahato Both residents of Machantand, P.O. Batbinor, P.S. Siyaljori (Chandankiyari), District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... Appellants
-versus-
1. Santosh Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad, resident of Road No.3, Raj Nagar, C.S. Complex, Central Colony, Makoli, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro.
2. Divisional Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, E- 8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, P.O. Sitapura, P.S. Sitapura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
----
10/ 16.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself on the request of the parties and also considering the fact that Lower Court Records has already been received.
3. In this appeal, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to them vide judgment and award dated 22nd September, 2016 passed in T.M.V. Case No.22 of 2016. Claimants herein are the parents of the deceased, who was aged about 22 years.
4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was a bachelor. He was a student of Civil Engineering. Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.20000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per annum, i.e., Rs.1667/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven) per month, which is not even equivalent wages of an unskilled labour. As per him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has assessed the monthly income of deceased studying in Engineering Course at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Pawaia & -: 2 :- Others versus Ashraf Ali & Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1083. He further contends that multiplier applied in this case by the Tribunal was '12', considering the age of the parents and not the age of the deceased, which is incorrect. He prays that the amount needs to be recalculated and enhanced after calculating the monthly income of the deceased.
5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that there is factual difference in the case cited by the appellant and the present one. As per him, in the case, which was being dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, deceased was in the course of B.E. in third semester, whereas in the instant case, the deceased was studying in Diploma Course. Thus, Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand) per month cannot be notional income of the deceased. He further submits that the deceased himself contributed to his death as he was not wearing helmet.
6. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. Deceased was aged about 22 years. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH 02W 9834, which is a truck was insured with the respondent No.2, Sriram General Insurance Company Limited on the date of the accident. The deceased, after attending a marriage ceremony while returning in a motorcycle along with his friend, when reached near Madhupur Bazar, Nimiaghat, the offending vehicle being Hywa bearing registration No. JH 02W 9834 dashed the said motorcycle. Both Vivekanand Mahto and Daleshwar Kumar Mahato sustained injury on their head and on other parts of body. Vivekanand Mahto was declared "brought dead" by the doctors. He was student of Diploma Course in Civil Engineering and was supposed to appear in his 6th Semester examination. As a result of this accident and death, claimants, being mother and father of the deceased, filed claim application claiming compensation.
7. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined namely, Mahaveer Prasad, who is father of the deceased Vivekanand Mahto and one Raju Kujur. He has been wrongly numbered as P.W.3.
P.W.1 Mahaveer Prasad stated that he is not the eye witness, but the Hywa bearing registration JH 02W 9834 was being driven rashly and negligently, which dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Deceased was a student of Civil Engineering and studied till 5th Semester and had a brighter academic future. At the time of death, he was aged about 22 years. He also stated that the deceased was imparting tuitions. There are other siblings of the -: 3 :- deceased. Through him postmortem report, educational documents, First Information Report were exhibited. In cross examination no questions were put to him with respect to his income.
P.W.2 is Raju Kujur (wrongly numbered as P.W.3). He was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident. He stated that he was returning after the marriage ceremony. Deceased Vivekanand Mahato and one Daleshwar Kumar Mahato were on one motorcycle. This witness and Ramanand Patel were on another motorcycle. He stated that the deceased was student of Civil Engineering. In paragraph 5 he stated that when they reached near Madhupur Bazar, a Hywa truck bearing registration No. JH 02W 9834 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in his death.
In his cross examination, he stated that he was not aware as to whether the deceased was having a proper driving licence or not. He stated that the deceased was not wearing helmet. He confirmed that the entire accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of hywa truck.
8. Some documents were also exhibited on behalf of the claimants, which were marked exhibits. First Information Report was Exhibit 1; Chargesheet was Exhibit 2, Postmortem Report of the deceased was Exhibit 3 and Admit Card of the deceased was marked as Exhibit 4.
9. From the evidence of the claimant, the fact, which is undisputed is that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was student of Diploma in Civil Engineering. Though the claimants claim that he was imparting some tution, but, there is nothing on record to suggest that he was actually imparting tution and was earning some amount. The owner of the Hywa also appeared before the Court. He was examined as O.P.W.1. He stated that he got information that an accident had taken place, resulting in death. The accident occurred on 20.04.2014. He stated that his vehicle was insured with Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and the insurance policy was valid from 04.10.2013 till 03.10.2014. He produced a copy of the owner book, tax token, fitness certificate, permit and insurance policy of the said vehicle, which were exhibited as Ext. 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E'. He also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle duly possessed a valid licence.
10. On behalf of the opposite parties, certificate of registration of the offending vehicle was marked as Exhibit 'A'; Tax Token was Exhibit 'B', Certificate of Fitness was Exhibit 'C', Permit was Exhibit 'D', Insurance -: 4 :- document was Exhibit 'E'. Driving licence of the offending vehicle was marked 'X' for identification.
11. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and after going through the documents and records, assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per annum. Thereafter deducted 1/5th on account of his personal expenses and applied '12' as multiplier, considering the age of the parents. Thus, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,17,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand). Challenging the aforesaid award, this appeal has been filed by the claimants.
12. As stated above, I find that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was aged about 22 years. He was a student of Diploma in Civil Engineering. The certificate issued by the State Board of Technical Education, Jharkhand is on record and are exhibits. This also suggests that at the time of death, deceased was a student of Diploma in Civil Engineering. The marksheet, which has been brought on record, suggests that he had obtained 59.6% and 51.52% in two semesters respectively. P.W.2 stated that alongwith the deceased he also studied and they were studying in Civil Engineering. These statements are uncontroverted. Thus, it is established that the deceased was a student of Diploma in Civil Engineering.
13. Now, this Court has to assess as to what would be the income of the deceased. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month by imparting tuitions, yet, there is no other supporting material save and except his oral statement. If at all the deceased was imparting some tuitions to the students, their parents should have been called before the Court as witnesses or there should have been some other materials brought on record, which is not there. Thus, the statement that the deceased was imparting tutitons cannot be accepted. The Tribunal also has rejected the aforesaid statement.
14. Now the question is what would be the income of the deceased for assessing the compensation amount, which the claimants are entitled to receive. In the case of Meena Pawaia (supra), deceased was aged about 21 years and was a student of 3rd year in degree in Civil Engineering. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month.
15. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company distinguished the aforesaid case with the -: 5 :- present case by stating that in this case, the student was Diploma in Civil Engineering whereas in the case being dealt by the Supreme Court the student was in a degree course and not in a diploma course. He submitted that income of diploma degree holder and bachelor degree holder cannot be equated. It is true that there is no material on record to suggest that what would be the income of the deceased, but, this Court has to assess the notional income since the deceased was a student of bachelor in civil engineering. Admitted fact, which appears from the documents and record, is that the deceased was 3rd year student. The certificates are already on record. Considering the aforesaid fact that the deceased was 3rd year student of Diploma in Engineering, it can safely be held that at least he could have earned Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month. Thus, I hold that notional income of the deceased in the instant case should, at least, be Rs.96,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand) per annum and not less. He also submitted that the deceased was not wearing helmet, as a result of which, claimants are not entitled to any relief. This argument is not accepted as this was not the issue before the Tribunal.
16. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. Thus, 50% deduction on account of personal expenses should be applied in this case. Deceased was of 22 years, thus, appropriate multiplier would be '18'. Be it noted that the application of multiplier would be as per age of the deceased and not as per the age of the parents. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and others, 40% enhancement should also be awarded, considering future prospect.
17. So far as compensation under the conventional head is concerned, claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand).
18. In terms of what has been held above, the quantum of compensation needs to be recalculated, which would be as follows:-
Sl. Description Calculation Amount
No.
1 Amount of compensation taking annual
96,000 x 18 17,28,000.00
income at Rs.96,000/- with multiplier of '18'
2 Amount of compensation after deducting
17,28,000 - 8,64,000 8,64,000.00
50% on account of personal expenses
3 Amount of compensation after adding 40%
8,64,000 + 3,45,600 12,09,600.00
on account of future prospect
4 Amount of compensation adding the amount
12,09,600 + 70000 12,79,600.00
of Rs.70,000/- under conventional head
-: 6 :-
19. As per this Court, the aforesaid amount, i.e., Rs.12,79,600/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred) is just compensation, which the claimants are entitled to receive. Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,17,000/-, thus, the balance amount comes to Rs.10,62,600/-. It has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Rs.2,17,000/- along with interest awarded has already been paid.
20. Considering the aforesaid submission, the claimants are entitled to balance amount of Rs.10,62,600/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred). This amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from March 2018 (as notice upon this appellant was issued on 27.02.2018) till the amount is paid.
21. This appeal is, thus, allowed. Award is modified accordingly. It is expected that the amount will be paid within a period of eight weeks.
22. In the meantime, the claimants, i.e., father and mother will open a joint account in their name and will furnish the same before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with photocopy of the passbook containing the bank details. The Insurance Company will transfer the amount in the aforesaid account and will intimate the claimants.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02