Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1132 (JHR)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Amina Khatoon

2020-12-02

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the short question involved in this appeal is that admittedly deceased died at the age of 30 years, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 18 instead of 17 in contrary the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that interest has been granted @ 9% after one month of the award which is contrary to the judgment passed in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the amount of compensation may be reduced. 5. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 6. Having heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials brought on record, it appears that admittedly the deceased (Majlum Alam) died at the age of 30 years and as per the Sarla Verma (Supra) multiplier should have been 17 but the learned Tribunal has wrongly used multiplier as 18. 7. So far the interest is concerned the same has been awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 9% per annum after one month of the award which ought to have been @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal (supra) as well as Section 171 of the MV Act. Since learned counsel for the respondents is not present, but as per the office notes no analogous appeal has been preferred by the claimants, this Court has perused the impugned award and found that under the conventional head less amount has been paid i.e. for loss of consortium of Rs.5,000/-and funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.8 [where the loss of Estate has been considered to be Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses to be Rs.15,000/-]. 8. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any appeal by the claimant, enhancement cannot be made in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 which is profitably quoted hereunder:- “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 9. This Court analyses the entire material and found that by applying the multiplier of 17 and giving interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application and enhancing the amount for conventional head the compensation amount shall be more or less the same. As such, this Court considers the award granted by the learned Tribunal to be fair and reasonable compensation and no interference is required. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the instant appeal shall be remitted to the court below for disbursement and it is expected that the appellant-Insurance Company will indemnify the rest amount within a reasonable time as the occurrence is of the year, 2017.