Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 279 (JHR)

Kishore Kumar v. Hussain

2007-04-09

M.Y.EQBAL, R.A.PRASAD

body2007
Order This appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them on account of death of the deceased Smt. Kamleshwari Devi due to vehicular accident. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on the fateful day, i.e. 15.12.1996 while the deceased Kamleshwari Devi was travelling in a Mini Bus (Tata 407) bearing registration no. BR-16A-0652 from Jamshedpur to Ghatshila it met with an accident in the way, as a result of which the deceased as well as other passengers, who sustained injuries were removed to hospital. Subsequently, in course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries at Tata Main Hospital. Thereafter the claimants put forth a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceased aged about 50-51 years whose surviving spouse does have income of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 3. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the service certificate (Ext.3) did find the income of the husband of the deceased as Rs.4,460/- and as such 1/3rd of the said amount coming to Rs.1,4B6/- was taken to be the notional income of the deceased as she did not have any independent income. Out of it, the Tribunal by deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of the deceased, did hold Rs.12,000/- as amount of annual dependency and by applying multiplier of 11, a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- was awarded as compensation and further Rs. 2,000/- as well as Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards funeral and loss of consortium respectively and thus, total amount of Rs.1,28,000/- was awarded as compensation. 4. The claimants-appellants being aggrieved with the said award have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the court below after finding notional income of the deceased as that of Rs.1,486/- has wrongly deducted further 1/3rd of the said amount as personal expenses of the deceased for finding out the amount of dependency and thereby compensation awarded to the claimants are not just compensation and hence, the impugned award is fit to be set aside and the claimants are entitled to more compensation. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was not an earning member. In that view of the matter, the tribunal ought to have taken notional income as prescribed in the schedule of the Act and not the income of the husband of the deceased. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was not an earning member. In that view of the matter, the tribunal ought to have taken notional income as prescribed in the schedule of the Act and not the income of the husband of the deceased. The tribunal, therefore, committed error of law in taking the income of the husband of the deceased as her notional income. Be that as it may, the tribunal has assessed the annual dependency at Rs. 12,000/-, which needs no interference by this Court. The deceased was aged 50 years and hence, the tribunal should have taken fifteen years of multiplier, instead of eleven years of multiplier for the purpose .of assessing the compensation. Taking fifteen years of multiplier the compensation amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. In our view, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- shall be just and reasonable compensation. 7. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the compensation amount enhanced to Rs. 1,80,000/- which shall carry interest as awarded by the tribunal.