Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.592 of 2017
National Insurance Company Ltd., Hindustan Building, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Policy No.301103/31/11/670004279, validity 25.03.12 to 24.03.13, represented through its Dy. Manager and Incharge, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Ranchi, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi Branch-II Premises, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
… … Appellant
Versus
Sunita Pandey, wife of Late Rajesh Kumar Pandey aged about 39 years 2. Shreya Raj D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 12 years, 3. Shreyash Pandey, son of Late Rajesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 7 years Applicant No.2 and 3 are minor so they are represented by his mother/Applicant No.1/Respondent No.1. All are resident of C/o A.K. Himanshu, B-412, Udaygiri Apartment, Ashiyana Enclave, Dimna Road, P.O. and P.S. M.G.M., Mango, Town Jamshedpur, permanent resident of village Rampur, P.O. and P.S. Kitumba, District Aurangabad, Bihar
… … Applicants/Respondents 4. Jagdish B Ayachi, son of B. Ayachi, resident of 129, Sector-03, Gandhidham, Kutchh, P.O. and P.S. Kutchh, District Kachh, Gujarat, PIN 370201
… … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent (1-3) : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
--- 08/13.08.2024
Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 (claimants). 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation passed in Compensation Case No.46/2013 by learned District Judge – III cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T), East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 3. He submits that the learned tribunal considered the evidences and rejected the claim that the deceased earned Rs.25,000/- per month, but the learned tribunal has taken the annual income at Rs.20,000/- per month. He submits that even if the income is taken at Rs.20,000/- per
month, some deduction ought to have been made on account of income tax. The accident had happened way back in the year 2012. 4. During the course of argument, the learned counsel has produced document to show that during the financial year 2012-2013 assessment year 2013-2014, the non-taxable income slab was only up to Rs.2,00,000/- and from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000, it was taxable @ 10% on the amount exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-. He submits that in the present case, if the slab and the rate is taken into consideration, then 10% on Rs.40,000/-[2,40,000- 2,00,000/-] was to be taken as income tax payable by the deceased which would come to Rs.4,000/- per year and consequently annual income for the purposes of calculation of compensation ought to have been taken at Rs.2,36,000/- instead of Rs.2,40,000/-. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimants while opposing the prayer has submitted that statement regarding income was also furnished vide Exhibit – 1, but the same was not duly considered by the learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that the future prospects have not been included while awarding the compensation amount. The learned counsel submits that the deceased was 41 years of age on the date of death, and accordingly, the future prospects ought to have been awarded to the extent of 25%, and therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference, rather it calls for enhancement taking into consideration the future prospect to the extent of 25 percent. He submits that the calculation of compensation has not been done in terms of the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. 6. In response, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 and has referred to paragraph 8 of the said judgment to submit that the claimants having not filed any cross appeal, cannot claim enhancement of compensation and the quantum has been challenged only by the insurance company. It is submitted that there cannot be any enhancement of compensation upon mere arguments
advanced on behalf of the claimants. He has also relied upon an order passed by this Court dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.A. No. 131 of 2016 and has submitted that the said judgment reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 has been duly followed by this Court. Findings of this court. 7. Calculation as per the impugned award is as under: - Calculation as per award Age of the deceased – 41- year of death 2012 Number of dependents – 3 Monthly income - 20,000 per month Yearly income - 2,40,000/- 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards persona living expenses of the deceased (in view of decision in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C) 1,60,000/- Compensation after multiplier of 14 Rs.22,40,000/- Conventional head- Rs. 1,60,000/- [loss of estate Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses- Rs.20,000/- and loss of consortium Rs. 60,000/-] Total = 24,00,000/- Interest payable @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment.
After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 20,000/- per month, but no deduction was done on account of income tax. At the same time, the learned court has not granted any relief on account of future prospects of the deceased, who was only 41 years of age on the date of death - 07.11.2012. The learned tribunal has calculated the compensation on account of conventional heads by giving Rs. 1,60,000/- [ loss of estate Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses- Rs.20,000/- and loss of consortium Rs. 60,000/-] and interest @ 6% per annum. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working in Carbon Edge Industries Ltd. as a chemist, but his quantum of income is being disputed by the appellant. The calculation with respect to the quantum of compensation inclusive of future prospects of 25% on the one hand
and upon deduction of income tax to the extent of Rs.4,000/- as claimed by the appellant on the other hand in a comparative chart is as follows:
Calculation as per law taking into consideration income tax, future prospects and conventional heads Calculation with deduction of income tax as argued by the appellant keeping intact the other items as awarded. Age of the deceased – 41- year of death 2012 Age of the deceased – 41- year of death 2012 Number of dependents – 3 Number of dependents – 3 Monthly income - 20,000 per month Yearly income - 2,40,000/- Deduct Rs.4,000/- on account of income tax [ 10% of 40,000/-; non taxable income at the time of death in the year 2012 – Rs. 2,00,000/-] Net income- Rs.2,36,000/- Monthly income - 20,000 per month Yearly income - 2,40,000/- Deduct Rs.4,000/- on account of income tax [ 10% of 40,000/-; non taxable income at the time of death in the year 2012 – Rs. 2,00,000/-] Net income- Rs.2,36,000/- Future prospect 25% of Rs.2,36,000 = 59,000/- Rs.2,36,000 +59,000/- = 2,95,000/- Not awarded by the tribunal 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards persona living expenses of the deceased (in view of decision in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C) 2,95,000/- (-)2,95,000/-x 1/3 2,95,000/-– 98,334/- = 1,96,666/- 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards persona living expenses of the deceased (in view of decision in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C) 2,36,000 (-) 2,36,000 x 1/3 2,36,000 – 78,667/- = 1,57,333/- Compensation after multiplier of 14 1,96,666/- x 14 = 27,53,324/- Compensation after multiplier of 14 1,57,333 x 14 = 22,02,662/- Conventional head - Rs. 1,50,000/- [ loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses- Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 X3] Total = 29,03,324/- [in terms of judgement passed in the case of Pranay Sethi reported in Conventional head as per impugned award - Rs. 1,60,000/- [ loss of estate Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses- Rs.20,000/- and loss of consortium Rs. 60,000/-] Total- Rs.23,62,662/-
(2017)16 SCC 680. loss of consortium is to be paid separately to each dependent in view of judgement passed in 2023 SCC Online SC 780 (Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs. And others) paragraph 33] Interest payable @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment. [in the case of Sarup Singh v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC death happened in the year 2012, the tribunal had awarded interest @ 9%, the High court had reduced interest to 6% and the Hon'ble supreme court awarded interest @ 7.5% from filing of claim till realisation.] Interest payable @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment.
This Court finds that if the deduction on account of income tax as claimed by the appellant insurance company is taken into consideration along with the consideration on account of future prospects and conventional heads as per the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the total amount payable to the claimants comes to Rs.29,03,324/-. However, as per the impugned award, the total amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- only has been awarded along with interest on the payable amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim till payment with a further direction that the ad interim compensation in terms of section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, if paid be deducted. 11. Upon calculation of compensation as per the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the payable amount is much higher than the awarded amount. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the awarded amount in the appeal filed by the insurance company. However, at the same time, the enhanced compensation is not being awarded as no
cross appeal has been filed by the claimants. Such view is being taken in view of the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 (Ranjana Prakash & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager & Anr.). Paragraph no.8 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant which is quoted as under: “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 owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 12. The present miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed as the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is at the lower side. 13. The statutory amount deposited before this Court is directed to be remitted to the executing court to be released in favour of the claimants or the insurance company depending upon the payment due. 14. It is just to place on record that vide order dated 09.04.2018, the execution proceedings were stayed subject to deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs before the executing court by two cheques/drafts one of Rs.10,00,000/- and another one of Rs.15,00,000/- and a direction was passed to disburse only to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- to the claimants. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stand closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav