Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 776 (JHR)

Arun Devi v. Anil Kumar Sharma

2004-08-04

M.Y.EQBAL, VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2004
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal and Vishnudeo, JJ. 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned order and award dated 27th September, 2003 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- only. The deceased Manoj Singh aged about 24 years was working as driver of truck bearing registration No. WB 37-2244. The truck met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to injuries. The claimants case was that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month from the owner of the truck. The owner of the truck also appeared before the Court as PW 4 and he deposed that the deceased was getting only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident took place in 1999 and taking his daily earning at Rs. 80/- per day for 26 days in a month the monthly income comes to Rs. 2,100/-. Taking this amount the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 2,85,6000/-. 3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the finding of the Tribunal by submitting that in the year 1999 the Minimum Wage was Rs. 1,100/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel has no leg to stand. It is rather surprising that on the one hand the claimant claimed that deceased was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month and on the other hand the owner of the vehicle deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 3,000/- but the Tribunal travelled beyond the pleadings and the evidence and erroneously and illegally assessed the compensation on presumption that because of minimum wages during the relevant time the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,100/-. The finding of the Tribunal and the procedure adopted by him in assessing the compensation is absolutely against the law. Even we accept the case of the owner of the vehicle that deceased was getting only Rs. 3000/- per month and if we take this amount as monthly earning of the deceased then the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2000/- and the Annual dependency comes to Rs. 24000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 24 years and minimum number of years of purchase as 16 years then the compensation amount should be atleast Rs. 3,84,000/-. If we take 17 years of purchase as per schedule this amount comes to Rs. 4,08,000/-. However, we take a round figure of Rs. 24000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 24 years and minimum number of years of purchase as 16 years then the compensation amount should be atleast Rs. 3,84,000/-. If we take 17 years of purchase as per schedule this amount comes to Rs. 4,08,000/-. However, we take a round figure of Rs. 3,90,000/- to be just and reasonable compensation which ought to have been awarded to the claimant / appellant. 4. The appeal, therefore, is allowed and the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,85,000/- to Rs. 3,90,000/-. Although, interest at the 9% per annum should have been awarded by the Tribunal but in the facts of the case we hold that compensation amount should carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal.