Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 377 (JHR)

Bishwa Ranjan Das v. Malkiyat Singh

2001-06-14

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the sole appellant, challenging the judgment and award, dated 15.3.1993 passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 84 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned claims tribunal allowed the compensation to be paid to the claimant/appellant of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) inclusive interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to the claimant/appellant with six per cent interest per annum from the date of application. 2. Claimant is the father of deceased Baijnath Das, who was Service Technician of Konark TV Limited and was posted at Kamdhenu Electronics. Ranch). It is further claimed that on 17.3.1989 he has gone to Ramgarh to attend some work. While he was returning on his own motorcycle on 18.3.1989 and reached near Booty More on national highway, the truck bearing registration No. UHL 9054 dashed against his motorcycle, as a result of which, he fell down and the wheel of the truck rode over the stomach of the deceased causing his death instantaneously. One Sri K.K. Thakker got information about the accident at 9.30 a.m. and thereafter, he reached to the place of occurrence A First Information Report was lodged and after due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and post-mortem was also held. 3. The witnesses were examined in the tribunal and after having head both sides, the tribunal passed the judgment and award against which this miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 4. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/appellant submitted that the learned tribunal wrongly passed the impugned award assessing the compensation very low and actually the multiplier of 18 will be applicable in the instant case as the deceased was aged 27 years old at the time of accident and the claimant is entitled for compensation of more than rupees three lacs. It is also submitted that the deceased was working as Technician in the Konark TV Company and was earning Rs. 2,160/- per month which will be evident from the Pay Account (Ext. 5). 5. On the other hand Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance Company (respondent No. 2) submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and there is nothing illegality. 2,160/- per month which will be evident from the Pay Account (Ext. 5). 5. On the other hand Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance Company (respondent No. 2) submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and there is nothing illegality. It is also submitted that the learned tribunal wrongly ordered for penal interest which is not proper and applicable. 6. There is no dispute that the deceased Baijnath Das died due to accident caused by the truck bearing registration No. UHL 9054 as it was dashed against his motorcycle resulting his death instantaneously. The post-mortem of the deceased was also held. It is also admitted position that the truck in question was duly insured with the said Insurance Company during the period, the accident took place (Ext. A) whereas the death certificate is Ext. 6. Obviously, the deceased was aged about 27 years of age at the time of accident and he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,160/- per month while he was in service. 7. On going through the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the tribunal has wrongly calculate the amount of compensation. It is also settle that compensation must be awarded just and reasonable to the claimant by taking into account the whole circumstance in the case. It further appears that the tribunal has also wrongly passed the penal interest as the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum which is illegal as the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has already been allowed on the compensation awarded, so the question of awarding penal interest again on the said amount does not appear to be reasonable and proper. 8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand) would be just, reasonable and proper in the instant case which will include the interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, already paid to the appellant. 9. Thus, respondent No. 2 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. 15,000/-, already paid to the appellant. 9. Thus, respondent No. 2 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The penal Interest awarded by the learned tribunal at the rate of 12 per cent per annum failing to pay compensation is set-aside. 10. The appeal is allowed in part but without cost. 11. Appeal allowed in part.