Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
2025:JHHC:26943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 71 of 2024
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its address at Harma Tower, 4th Floor, Club Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi, through its Senior Manager Legal Claims, Abhijeet Mishra, S/o US Mishra, presently at 163, Thapar House, 4th Floor, SP Mukharjee Road, Mudiali .... …. Appellant
Versus
Reeta Devi, W/o Awadhesh Ram 2. Awadhesh Ram, S/o Late Fagui Ram 3. Vishal Kumar, S/o Awadhesh Ram, All R/o Aghor Aashram Road, Sudna, Village-Sudna, P.O. & P.S.-Medninagar, Dist.-Palamau 4. Safalta Kumari, D/o Angnu Bhagat, R/o Village-Kumba Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Ratu, Dist.-Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
Ms. Alisha Lakra, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
----- Oral Order
13 / Dated : 04.09.2025 1. The appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the impugned Judgment of Award of compensation under Section 166 of the M. V. Act passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.366 of 2022 for the death of Vijay Kumar in a motor vehicle accident involving Renault Kwid Car bearing Registration No.JH01 EB 8347. 2. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending car which was under the insurance cover of the appellant- Insurance Company at the relevant time of accident, and awarded compensation considering the occupation of the deceased that he was running a coaching institute and was having an Annual Income of Rs.5 Lakhs as per the Income Tax Return i.e. Ext.12 to 12/2. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that it was a case of contributory negligence, but the same was not considered by the learned Tribunal and the appellant- Insurance Company has been solely saddled with the liability. 4. It is also submitted that the income tax deduction has also not been
2025:JHHC:26943 2
considered by the learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. 5. It is argued that as per the case of the claimants, the income of Rs. 5 Lakh per annum was from ARB Institute, however, no evidence has been led to show that after the death of Vijay Kumar in the road accident, the business was wound up. Unless there is a loss of income, a presumption cannot be drawn that the death led to the loss of income to the claimants. It is further argued that the income of the deceased was not within taxable range. The accident took place on 16.03.2022 and in the financial year 2021-22, the taxable slab above Rs.2.5 Lakh to Rs. 5 Lakh was 5% which has not been taken while assessing the loss, the deceased was also not wearing a Helmet at the time of accident. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the plea of contributary negligence cannot be accepted as FIR (Ext.1), Chargesheet (Ext.2) were filed against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Car. Further, PWs 1 and 2 have consistently stated that the accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Renault Kwid Car which is the offending vehicle in the present case. Therefore, there is no infirmity regarding the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said car. 7. Now coming to the income, it was a Coaching Institute run by the deceased, and by its very nature, it was likely to suffer loss on account of the death of the person who was running the Institute. It is not a case of agricultural income where the death did not affect the landed estate of the claimants. In absence of any contrary evidence that the Institute has stopped working, a presumption cannot be drawn that there was no loss of income and the Institute continued to operate. 8. On the point of income, taking Rs 2.5 lakh as the taxable slab at the time of the accident, the annual of income of the deceased at the time of accident shall be Rs 5 lakh – 12,500= Rs 4,87,500/- 9. Taking Rs.4,87,500/- as annual income, the final compensation shall work out as under:
2025:JHHC:26943 3
Annual Income Rs 4,87,500/- Annual dependency after deducting 50% on the living and personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was married Rs 2,43,750/- Applying multiplier of 16 Rs 39,00,000/- Future Prospect @ 40% Rs,15,60,000/- Conventional head Rs 77,000 Total Rs 55,37,000/-
The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.55,37,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the appellant Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. 11. Statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal for being paid to the claimants against the final compensation. 12. The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants within a month from the date of order after the receipt of the same amount. It goes without saying, that amount already paid to the claimants shall be deducted while paying the final compensation amount. Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra