Jharkhand High Court
Churia Devi vs New India Insurance Company on 23 June, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 M.A. 108 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 108 of 2010
(Against the award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional
District Judge, Deoghar-cum- Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2003)
Churia Devi, wife of Kali Mahtha, resident of village- Punsia, Tola
- Nawadih, P.S- Mohanpur, P.O.- Malhara, Sub-division &
District- Deoghar ...... Claimant/ Appellant
Versus
1. New India Insurance Company, B. Deoghar, Kutchery Road B.
Deoghar, District- Deoghar
2. Sitaram Choudhary,son of Kuldeo Choudhary (Owner & Driver)
resident of village-Punsia, Tola - Nawadih, P.S.- Mohanpur, P.O.-
Malhara, Sub-division and District- Deohgar
..... Opposite Parties/ Respondents
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. D.C. Ghose, Adv.
: Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, -cum- Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2003 whereby and where under, the learned court below in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant after deducting the interim compensation, if any paid to the claimant, and as the insurance company had already paid the said amount, it was ordered that the insurance company will not recover the said amount from the claimant and 2 M.A. 108 of 2010 will have liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The brief facts of this case is that on 27.10.2001, when the deceased was travelling in the offending tractor-trailer, he fell down from the said tractor trailer and was ran over by it and he died. The deceased was 15 years of age. Learned tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and considered the age of the claimant to be 65 years, applied the multiplier 5 and after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation.
4. Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kurban Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr. reported in 2022 (1)SCC 317, paragraph 16 of which reads as under:
"16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier of 15, as prescribed in Schedule II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it comes to Rs 3,75,000 (Rs 25,000 × multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs 40,000 each towards filial consortium and Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following amounts towards compensation:
(a) Loss of dependency : Rs 3,75,000-00
(b) Filial consortium (Rs 40,000 × 2) : Rs 80,000-00
(c) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000-00
Total : Rs 4,70,000-00
and submits that learned tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 25,000/- per annum and the multiplier to be 15 in view of the principle of law settled by the of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sube Singh and Anr. vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 18, para 4 and 5 of which reads as under:
"4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was 23 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 22- 9-2009. He was unmarried and his parents who filed the petition for compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45 years. The High Court, relying on the decision in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi [Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma, (2015) 2 SCC 180 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 792 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 855] held that multiplier 14 will be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased. The legal position, however, is no more res integra. In Munna Lal Jain [Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 315 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 195] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, it is 3 M.A. 108 of 2010 held that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependants. We may usefully refer to the exposition in paras 11 and 12 of the reported decision, which read thus: (Munna Lal Jain case [Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 315 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 195] , SCC pp. 351-52) "11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court [Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4540] following Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for some time; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] . It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: (Reshma Kumari case [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] , SCC p. 88, para 36) '36. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section
166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] .'
12. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] at para 19 a two-Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote: (SCC p. 133) '19. ... Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.'"
5. Considering the aforementioned principle expounded in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : AIR 2017 SC 5157] , the appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier 18.
and further submits that the tribunal would have given the filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, in total Rs. 4,30,000/- and accordingly, the owner of the offending vehicle be directed to pay the said amount. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
4 M.A. 108 of 2010
5. Learned counsel for the insurance company has no objection to the prayer.
6. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle- respondent no. 2, on the other hand, defends the impugned judgment and submits that since the occurrence took place in the year 2001 and the judgment passed in Kurban Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr. (supra) or Sube Singh and Anr. vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others (supra) were not there before learned tribunal hence, learned tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation amount, hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this case, is that:
Whether the compensation amount is to be enhanced ?
8. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Kurban Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr. (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appropriate notional income should be Rs. 25,000/- per annum and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Sube Singh and Anr. vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others (supra) and also in the case of Kurban Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr. (supra), the multiplier should be 15 depending upon the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimant and further the claimant is entitled to filial consortium to Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, that makes the total amount Rs. 4,30,000/-, less Rs. 50,000/-, already paid to the claimant. The sole point of determination is answered accordingly.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and award dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, - cum- Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar in M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2003 is modified by directing the respondent no. 2- the owner of the offending vehicle, to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- with interest thereon @ interest 6% per annum from the date of this judgment to date of 5 M.A. 108 of 2010 actual payment, within three months from the date of this judgment.
10. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd June, 2022 Smita /AFR