Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 180 (JHR)

Sudha Pandey v. Leela Devi

2002-02-14

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. Madan Mohan Pandey, husband of appellant, Sudha Pandey, was employed as helper in area No. 3 of M/s Bharal Coking Coal Limited at Gobindpur Colliery. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,300/- per month. 2. On 11.11.1989, while going on a Jeep (BHD-9642) from Bhuli to Gobindpur Colliery to attend his duty, near Sahid Chowk on Hirak Road at Dhanbad, a truck (BHR-8993) dashed against the Jeep, as a result of which Jeep fell into a ditch and Madan Mohan Pandey sustained serious injury and died on spot. 3. The deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident and after his death the appellant, being his wife, was given employment on compassionate ground by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and she was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,600/- per month. 4. In the claim case, filed by appellant, it was established that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck, which was owned by Leela Devi, wife of Narayana Pandey and was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2, at the relevant time. Age of deceased as well as amount of salary which he was drawing at the time of accident as also amount of salary, the appellant, on her appointment on compassionate ground was drawing, were not in dispute. 5. By impugned judgment and award, tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 54,000/- payable as compensation to widow of the deceased. It was observed that after death of her husband she had received all the amount, which was payable after death of her husband from M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and she was also given employment in place of her husband and she had no issue. 6. It was further observed that the widow did not sustain monetary loss due to death of her husband. However, she was granted Rs. 54,000/- as compensation amount for mental shock sustained by her due to death of her husband. 7. Smt. Param Jyoti Devi, respondent No. 3, mother of deceased was also granted Rs. 30,000/- as compensation separately. The said amount was calculated on assessing annual dependency at Rs. 6,000/- and applying multiplier of 5 thereto. 8. It is not in dispute that deceased was the bread earner of the family and when he met unfortunate death, he was only 28 years old. 30,000/- as compensation separately. The said amount was calculated on assessing annual dependency at Rs. 6,000/- and applying multiplier of 5 thereto. 8. It is not in dispute that deceased was the bread earner of the family and when he met unfortunate death, he was only 28 years old. It is true that after his death his widow was given employment on compassionate ground. 9. It has not come on record that the widow was given such appointment as a special case. Benefit of employment was given to her on policy decision of the Company, which was available in case of death or disablement of its employees. It is, therefore, clear that appointment of the widow in the Company was made with a view to make up the loss to her on account of tortious act, for which the Company was vicariously liable. 10. Likewise those amounts which were paid to her by the Company on account of death of her husband were also not in the nature of gratuitous payment. The Company was liable in tort for the death of an employee, to pay the same to the widow of such an employee. 11. In determining the pecuniary loss to the dependents of a person, who died in a motor accident, no deduction can be made for the earning capacity or the actual earnings of his widow after she was given employment on death of her husband. 12. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench decision of Gujrat High Court in Arunaben and Ors. v. Mehmoodbhai Imamali Kaji and Ors., AIR 1983 Guj 10 , wherein it was held that while assessing the amount of dependency in case of death in a motor accident, deduction of the earnings of the widow arising from her gainful employment taken up after the accidental death of her husband cannot be made, because such income of the widow was not a benefit in consequence of the death of her husband, but was the result of her own labour. 13. Admittedly, monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 3,364/-. In absence of any specific evidence regarding actual amount, which was being spent by the deceased towards personal expenses, 1/3rd is deducted and on this basis annual dependency is calculated at Rs. 26,912/-. 14. 13. Admittedly, monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 3,364/-. In absence of any specific evidence regarding actual amount, which was being spent by the deceased towards personal expenses, 1/3rd is deducted and on this basis annual dependency is calculated at Rs. 26,912/-. 14. On the ratio of decision of Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Susamm Thomas & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1634, even if 10 multiplier is applied the total amount of compensation would be more than Rs. two lacs. The claimant in her claim application had asked for compensation at Rs. two lacs only, 15. In our opinion, the claimant-appellant, widow of the deceased and respondent No. 3, mother of the deceased are jointly entitled to get the aforesaid amount of Rs. two lacs as compensation under the Act. Besides this, they are also entitled to Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim case till payment. 16. It goes without saying that amount of compensation, if any, already paid to the claimant-appellant and respondent No. 3 shall be deducted. 17. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award. No. costs.