Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 716 (JHR)

Sajda Khatoon v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2010-07-08

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, JAYA ROY

body2010
Order Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Addl. Claim Tribunal, F.T.C.III, Chatra in. Claim Case No. 30 of 2002 whereby the claimants have been awarded Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation, directing to equally divide the said amount amongst all the claimants with further direction to deposit the amount of the share of minors in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank. 3. The appellants claimants who are wife and five minors sons and daughters of the deceased have challenged the quantum of compensation amount granted by the Claim Tribunal and prayed to enhance the compensation amount. 4. The facts of the casein brief is that the deceased Sabjan Mian aged about 40 years, received grievous injury in a Motor Vehicle Accident by Vashundhara Bus bearing No. BHY-2225 on 26.2.2002 at 1.30 P.M. near Delho Ghati and he succumbed to the injury in the Hospital. The tribunal has come to the finding that "it is clear that Vashundhara Bus No. BHY 2225 was being driven rashly and negligently on 26.2.2002 at about 1.30 P.M. at Delho Ghati under P.S.-Simariya, District Chatra, has caused motor vehicle accident resulting to death of Md. Sabjan @ Subjan Mian". 5. The tribunal has found the insurance policy to be valid from 1.7.01 to 30.6.2002 and the date of occurrence was 26.2.2002. According to• the claimants, Subjan Mian was working in a Plastic Factory at Kolkata and earning Rs.6,0001- per month and Rs. 3,0001- per month from agriculture. But not a single chit of paper has been filed by the claimants in support of their contention in respect of his employment in the Plastic Factory. Further, they all have made contradictory statements regarding the salary structure as well as the actual name and place of the Factory. Therefore, the tribunal having found no evidence to establish the work place and the salary structure of the deceased, disbelieved the employment of the deceased in the Plastic Factory. 6. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased Rs.18,000/- per annum from the agriculture and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15, granted the total compensation of Rs.1,80,0001- to the claimants. 7. 6. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased Rs.18,000/- per annum from the agriculture and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15, granted the total compensation of Rs.1,80,0001- to the claimants. 7. The counsel of the appellants has relied on a decision of the Apex Court, reported in 2009 A.C.J. Vol.-II Page 1298 wherein it has been held that the deduction on account of personal living expenses cannot be at a fixed one third in all cases (unless the calculation is under Section 163A read with Second Schedule to the M.V. Act). The percentage of deduction on amount of personal and living expenses can certainly vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family. 8. He has further contended that in the present case, the total number of the dependents are six therefore deduction of 1/3rd amount for the personal expenses of the deceased is not reasonable. 9. Taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking in consideration the. decision of the Supreme Court relied by the appellants, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be just and reasonable compensation. We, therefore, allow this holding that the appellant-claimants shall be entitled a lump sum compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two lacs fifty thousand only) and direct the Insurance Company to pay this amount within four weeks from the date of this order and in case of failure, the claimants will be entitled the interest @ 9% per annum from the dale of this order till the payment is made. The mode of the payment would be the same as directed by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly allowed. .