Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 200 (JHR)

Feroza Khatoon v. Shiv Munda

2004-02-23

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, TAPEN SEN

body2004
Judgment By Court.-This is an appeal by the claimants. The claimants, the mother, wife and children of deceased, Amir Hussain, approached the Claims Tribunal for compensation on the plea that Amir Hussain died as a result of an accident on 2.10.1993. While he was riding on Scooter, he was hit by a Matador Van and the accident was as a result of the negligence on the part of Matador driver, who was also its owner. Evidence was adduced on the income that was being earned by Amir Hussain. Though the Tribunal did not fully accept the evidence, in that behalf, it came to a finding on the basis of the available material that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2000/-. The claims Tribunal after reducing the amount that would be spent by the deceased on himself, valued the dependency at Rs. 1300/- per month. The annual dependency was thus calculated as Rs. 15,600/-. Applying-the multiplier of 15, the compensation was adjudged at Rs. 2,34,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for loss of expectation of life. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,44,000/- was awarded. But the Tribunal fixed a time for the Insurance Company fat making the payment as two months from the date of the award and provided that in case the amount was not paid within that time, interest at the rate" of 12% per annum would accrue from the date of the passing of the award. 2. Being not satisfied with this Award, the claimants who had made an original claim for Rs. 3,00,000/-, filed the appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge, on considering the relevant materials, dismissed the appeal finding no reason for interference. The decision thus rendered is challenged before us in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal should have adopted a multiplier of 18 in the circumstances of the case and the application of multiplier of 15 alone was not justified. Counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Haryana VS. Jasbir Kaur (2003)7 S.C.C. 484 to justify his submission that the multiplier could have been 18. 4. The Tribunal was justified in applying the principles, discussed and settled elaborately by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation VS. Mrs. Counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Haryana VS. Jasbir Kaur (2003)7 S.C.C. 484 to justify his submission that the multiplier could have been 18. 4. The Tribunal was justified in applying the principles, discussed and settled elaborately by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation VS. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others, AIR 1994 ....S. C. 1631 to adopt the multiplier of 15. The learned Single Judge also did not find any reason to interfere in the context of the case. Sitting in further appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, we are not satisfied that we will be justified in interfering with the adoption of 15 as the multiplier. In this context, we have also noticed the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that really speaking, there is no legal evidence on the monthly income earned by the deceased and the fixing of the figure at Rs. 2000/- was not justified, although we are satisfied. that interference on that aspect need not be made. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants then submitted that the Tribunal was in error in not awarding interest from the date of the application for compensation. It is not clear whether this ground was argued before the learned Single Judge, though in the Memorandum of this Letters Patent Appeal, a ground in this regard has been taken. We think that the Tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the application rather than providing for interest on expiry of two months from the date of the award as it has done. We think that in the circumstances and taking note of subsequent trend of decisions of the Supreme Court, interest should be awarded from the date of the application till realization. We are, there fore, satisfied that the award requires to be modified to the extent of providing for interest at 9% per annum on the compensation awarded from the date of application before the Tribunal until the date of payment. 6. This Letters Patent Appeal is thus allowed to the limited extent of modifying the award relating to interest and awarding it to the claimants at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application, till the date of realization on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.