Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 733 (JHR)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Guria Devi

2014-07-15

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 21.1.2013 passed by District Judge-II-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 223 of 2010, where by the appellant insurance company has been directed to pay a total compensation of Rs. 16,00,700/-(Rupees sixteen lakhs and seven hundred) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application and till the date of final realization. The interim compensation paid to the claimants u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been directed to be deducted from the total compensation amount. 2. The facts in brief is that Sita Ram Sharma along with Tapan Kumar Supkar was returning from T.V. Centre and they were going to Koyala Nagar on foot. When they reached the road near CISF Parade Ground, Koyala Nagar within P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, a motorcycle bearing registration No. JH10S-0326 being driven rashly caused dash to Sita Ram Sharma. As a result, he sustained injury and died in course of treatment in Hospital. Accident took place on 13.12.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., where the deceased died on the next day. 3. The claimants who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Sita Ram Sharma have filed petition for grant of compensation in lieu of the death of Sita Ram Sharma before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad and the said petition was registered as Title (M.V.) Suit No. 223 of 2010. The appellants, respondents and the owner of the motorcycle had appeared and filed their respective show cause and written statements. After considering evidence and documents on record, learned Tribunal has decided the claim application in favour of the respondents/ claimants and passed the award as indicated above. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the motorcycle was being driven by Onkar Nath who was having learner license whereas Anand Ojha who was assisting him, to have experience of driving, was sitting on the rear seat. Onkar Nath has produced his learner license, but Anand Ojha who was assisting Onkar Nath in getting experience of driving, did not produce valid driving license. Therefore, the insured has violated Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Onkar Nath has produced his learner license, but Anand Ojha who was assisting Onkar Nath in getting experience of driving, did not produce valid driving license. Therefore, the insured has violated Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has accepted monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,500/-though no documentary evidence was produced. The Tribunal has relied only on the statement of the employer. Furthermore, the Tribunal has wrongly increased the income of the deceased to 30% more, considering future prospect, hike of price and salary to be paid to the daily wage earner. The finding of the learned Tribunal on this point is highly erroneous in view of the judgment reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and another (Para-24). The learned counsel has referred another judgment reported in 2013(2) TAC 369 (SC) Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & another and submitted that the view taken in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has been followed. The learned counsel has vehemently opposed the finding of the learned Tribunal that 30% increase in income should not have been considered as future prospect in the existing salary of the deceased. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/ claimants, has opposed the arguments and submitted that a person who is a daily wage earner or self employed is also expected of getting higher salary in his future life and this aspect has been taken note of by their Lordships in the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (Para-6, 7 and 8). Learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the just and reasonable compensation and the findings need no interference. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the judgments cited from both sides. The facts appearing in the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. is not available in the case at hand. Furthermore, the judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), Sanotshi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 have been referred, but their Lordships have not given note of dissent in the said judgment. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. is not available in the case at hand. Furthermore, the judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), Sanotshi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 have been referred, but their Lordships have not given note of dissent in the said judgment. On the other hand, the view expressed by their Lordships in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has been followed in the judgment reported in 2013(2) TAC 369 (SC) Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & another. Since no clear picture is available before us, the view taken by their Lordships in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been followed in other judgments is to be relied upon. 7. In that view of the matter, if the amount of compensation is calculated it would come to Rs. 12,24,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs twenty four thousand). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,500/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred) on account of loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses and thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 12,33,500/-. I feel it desirable to round up the same to the extent of Rs. 12,50,000/-. The interim compensation u/s 140 of the M.V. Act has already been paid, therefore, after deducting that interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-from the total compensation, the appellant insurance company shall pay compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs) instead of Rs. 16,00,700/-(Rupees sixteen lakhs seven hundred) decided by the tribunal, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application to the claimants/ respondents within 60 days from today. 8. The respondents/claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand), which the appellant has deposited in the High Court at the time of presenting the appeal and that sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) shall be deducted from the total compensation amount. 9. With these modification in the award the appeal stands partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.