Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 191 (JHR)

Silwanti Samad v. Mahavir Kumar Mantri

2023-02-17

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. Although the notice was issued upon the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle and who has been served but inspite of that, respondent No. 1 has not appeared and that is why the instant appeal has been heard in absence of the respondent no. 1. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/Award dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega in M.A.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2014, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. The claim application was filed stating therein that on 20.12.2010 the deceased along with Binay Surin was going to Simdega on Hero Honda Motorcycle No. JHO 20A/1230 and at about 1 : 00 p.m. near Fikpani Mantri Bus bearing registration No. JHO1B-1585 was coming from Rourkela side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which he received fatal injury and died at the spot and with respect to that accident, Kolebira P.S. Case No. 51/10 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. 5. Mr. Zaid Ahmad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not providing any amount under the future prospect head. He further submits that the age of the deceased was 25 years and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 it was required to be multiplied by 18, whereas it was multiplied by 17. He further submits that the income was considered on the lessor side and on this ground, he submits that interference is required by this Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount and the quantum is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the award and this petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount and the quantum is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the award and this petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. On perusal of the Award, the Court finds that the learned Tribunal has taken the earning of the deceased for Rs. 200/- per day and total Rs. 6,000/- in a month, however, in absence of any paper, the deceased's notional income was fixed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month and the annual income was at Rs. 36,000/-. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of 2011 (1) JLJR 182 SC wherein it has been held that if the deceased being bachelor, his 50 % income should be treated as the personal and living expenses and the Court finds that in that view of the matter, the income decided by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law and no interference is required, however, considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier was put to 18 whereas the learned Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 17, and in view of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), it should be 18, in place of 17. In view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the future prospect to the tune of 40% is required to be added in the Award which is lacking in the same. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is being allowed in the above terms and the Award is modified to the extent, for future prospect 40 % shall be added multiplier with 18, and accordingly, the same shall be calculated afresh by the learned Tribunal. The difference of amount shall be released in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the additional amount plus interest in terms of the Award shall be released in favour of the claimants. 9. The remaining amount shall be released in favour of the appellant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the respondent/Insurance Company. 10. With the above modification in the Award, M.A. No. 474 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.