Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 754 (JHR)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sandhya Gorai

2016-05-02

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : Amitav K. Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ award dated 8.5.2012, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamtara, in MACT Case No. 1 of 2011. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of award on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that no document on chit of paper was adduced to support the plea that the deceased had an income of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the grocery shop. It is urged that the learned Tribunal was erred in not appreciating the fact that in the pleadings, the total income of the deceased has been mentioned to be Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the said grocery shop as well as from the agricultural land. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any evidence on record and the investigator of the Insurance Company had conducted an investigation and as per the report, the sons of the deceased have been running the grocery shop and there is no loss of income as the grocery shop is being run by the sons. On the said grounds, it is contended that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and not supported by any material evidence. 3. Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, counsel on behalf of the respondents/claimants has submitted that the witnesses have stated that the deceased Suku Gorai was running a grocery shop in the village from which he had an income of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. That the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of the statement of the witnesses. That the impugned order does not merit any interference. 4. Having heard the counsels and on perusal of the claimant's application, it transpires that in column-6, the monthly income of the deceased has been mentioned at Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is mentioned that the deceased is self-employed cultivator and owner of the grocery shop. On the fateful day Sukra Gorai (since deceased) was riding the motorcycle which was dashed by the Ambassador Car. 7,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is mentioned that the deceased is self-employed cultivator and owner of the grocery shop. On the fateful day Sukra Gorai (since deceased) was riding the motorcycle which was dashed by the Ambassador Car. In the accident Sukra Gorai sustained injuries and he was taken to the hospital for treatment and from where he was referred to Asansol for better treatment. However, he died while being taken to Asansol. It is not disputed that no papers or documents have been produced by the claimants to substantiate the plea that the income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the investigator of the appellant-Insurance Company had conducted the investigation but no investigation report was produced in the Court below and it cannot be looked into at this stage. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of the claim and no chit of paper was produced to substantiate the assertion that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the grocery shop. In fact, in the claim application it is stated that the deceased had income of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the grocery shop and the agricultural land. 5. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month, and, the annual income is computed at Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/-. One-third of Rs. 60,000/- is deducted towards the amount, the deceased would have spent on himself. Accordingly, the loss of dependency per annum comes to Rs. 40,000/-. The deceased was aged above 50 years, hence, the multiplier applicable is 11, therefore, the total loss of dependency is computed at Rs. 40,000 x 11 = Rs. 4,40,000/-. It transpires that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, the said amount is enhanced and lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses, accordingly, the total compensation payable is computed at Rs. 5,10,000/-. The appellant/insurance Company has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards interim compensation, hence, the compensation payable comes to Rs. 5,10,000/- - Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 4,60,000/-. 70,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses, accordingly, the total compensation payable is computed at Rs. 5,10,000/-. The appellant/insurance Company has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards interim compensation, hence, the compensation payable comes to Rs. 5,10,000/- - Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 4,60,000/-. The Insurance Company shall pay the said compensation amount with interest @ 6% from the date of the order, and amount, if any, which has been paid/deposited in the Court below shall be deducted and the outstanding amount is to be paid by the Insurance Company in the ensuing Lok Adalat i.e.. on 14.5.2016. 6. With the said observation and direction, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent as noted above and the appeal is hereby disposed of. Appeal disposed of.