Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 378 (JHR)

Chandra Mohan Khetan v. Satendra Prasad Agrawal

2008-03-31

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
JUDGMENT: D.K. Sinha, J.-This appeal by the appellants/claimants has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in Misc. Claim Case No. 5 of 2004. 2. The fact of the case in brief was that in the morning of 18.11.2003 Rajani Khetan (since deceased) with her brother Rajesh Khetan was going on T.V.S. Victor Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH11 B-3256 from her home and when she reached near village Boro, a truck bearing registration No. BR-24B-7024 coming from behind dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, Rajani Khetan sustained grievous injury. Both the riders were thrown out of the motorcycle on the road with the impact of thrust and the injured were removed to Sadar Hospital Giridih but Rajani Khetan was reported brought dead whereas Rajesh Khetan was admitted. It was alleged by the claimants that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said truck the accident took place which led to institution of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 290 of 2003 for the offence under sections 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code. It was pointed out that the respondent No.1-Satyendra Prasad Agrawal was the owner of the truck No. BR-24B7024 and respondent No.2-Ranjan Kumar at the relevant time of the alleged accident was driving the said truck rashly and negligently. It was stated that the motorcycle was insured with the respondent No.5, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its branch office Makatpur Giridih having insurance policy whereas offending truck was insured with the. Respondent NO.3-National Insurance Company. 3. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/was claimed by them from the National Insurance Company. However, upon adjudication of the claim and assuming the age of the deceased 21 years at the relevant time of the accident, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,72,000/fixing the liability upon the National Insurance Company (respondent No.3) herein i.e. Insurer of the truck and while deciding the issue Nos. 5 and 6 the Tribunal quoted the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants including mother of the deceased P.W. 1-Kiran Devi @ Neelam Khetan who testified that the deceased, aged about 23 years, used to teach painting and sewing and was honours graduate with her monthly income Rs. 5000/- from the above sources. 5 and 6 the Tribunal quoted the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants including mother of the deceased P.W. 1-Kiran Devi @ Neelam Khetan who testified that the deceased, aged about 23 years, used to teach painting and sewing and was honours graduate with her monthly income Rs. 5000/- from the above sources. P.W.2-Chandramohan Khetan, father of the deceased testified that the deceased was aged about 21 years having passed B.A. (Honours) examination, used to do tuition and to impart training of computer, painting and sewing with her monthly income Rs. 5,000/- from the above sources. The witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the claimants were consistent that she was 21 years old with her monthly income Rs. 5,000/- but after examining the testimony of the witnesses critically the tribunal erroneously assessed the notional annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- as per provision of Section 163A of the M.V. Act against the settled law. After 1/3rd statutory deduction the annual dependency of the claimants-parents was assessed Rs. 10,000/- only. We find that such calculation was based upon erroneous consideration. Admittedly, the deceased had passed her B.A. (Honours) examination recently and was engaged in doing job of tuition with the substantial regular income. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in our opinion, erred by calculating the income of the deceased on notional basis and therefore, award of Rs. 1,72,000/to the claimants, who are none other than the parents of the deceased, is inadequate. 4. No documentary evidence was produced before the tribunal in respect of the income of the deceased from the different sources except the oral evidence that she was doing tuition and therefore, we find that the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of, the claimants failed to substantiate that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- from all sources. 5. Yet, taking the considered view that the deceased was an honours graduate and was doing tuition, we assess Rs. 2,000/- being her monthly income from tuition which amounts to Rs. 24,000/- as her annual income. Upon 1/3rd statutory deduction from her total annual income, dependency of the claimants/appellants comes to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- per annumn. Noticing the old age of the parents, in our view, the suitable multiplier would be 14 and if the annual dependency of the claimants is multiplied by 14, it amounts to Rs. 24,000/- as her annual income. Upon 1/3rd statutory deduction from her total annual income, dependency of the claimants/appellants comes to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- per annumn. Noticing the old age of the parents, in our view, the suitable multiplier would be 14 and if the annual dependency of the claimants is multiplied by 14, it amounts to Rs. 2,24,000/- which would be proper and adequate compensation. We further find that 6% simple interest on the awarded amount drawn from the date of the filing written statement of the respondent NO.3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. by the impugned order of the tribunal is just and proper which does not call for interference. With the above modification in the compensation amount this appeal is allowed in part with the direction to the Respondent NO.3-National Insurance Company Ltd. to ensure payment to the claimants/appellants within six weeks of this order. M. Y. Eqbal, J.- I agree.