The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction) M.A. No. 516 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Building, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur ..... … Appellant

Versus 1. Sabitri Keshri, W/o Late Gopal Prasad 2. Parmendra Singh, S/o Sri Janardan Singh …. …. Respondents ….... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) ......... For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents .......... 05/06.11.2020. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Appellant- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 17.02.2017 passed by learned District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No.146 of 2013 whereby the claim application of the claimant/respondent- Sabitri Keshri (claimant) has been allowed, directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.9,96,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment. If the amount has been paid to the applicant under Section 140 of the MV Act as ad-interim compensation, the same should be deducted from the above mentioned awarded amount. The applicant is directed to deposit half of the compensation amount in fixed deposit scheme for a period of six years in a nationalized bank. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the registration number of the offending vehicle mentioned in the FIR as Bajaj Scooter bearing registration no.BR-16C-2674, but during investigation the claimant has disclosed the offending vehicle as Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-05U-1032. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not considered the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Benu Karmakar & Ors., reported in 2014 2 JCR 811 = 2014 (2) JLJR 433. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the impugned award is bad in law, as such, the instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.7561 of 2017 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with

-2- Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 96 days. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.5708 of 2020 has been filed under Order-XLI, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of Execution/Revocation Case No.34 of 2017 pending in the court of District Judge-III at Jamshedpur. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that delay may be condoned and stay of Execution Case may be granted after hearing the parties, be pleased to set aside the award. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. It appears that husband of the claimant- Gopal Prasad died in a motorcycle accident, which caused on 24.06.2009 at about 09:30 A.M. near Share-A-Punjab Chowk, Adityapur, who was referred for treatment and ultimately succumbed to the injury at T.M.H., Jamshedpur on 25.06.2009 at the age of 48 years. 10. The appellant has raised a point with regard to discrepancies in registration number of the offending vehicle as Bajaj Scooter bearing registration no.BR-16C- 2674, which was mentioned in the FIR, but during investigation the offending vehicle disclosed by the claimant as Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-05U-1032. The police after thorough investigation has submitted charge- sheet, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-2. 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that after accident the claimant went to Kolkata with the dead-body of her husband. Thereafter she returned to Jamshedpur and the shopkeepers around the place of occurrence disclosed the registration number of actual offending vehicle as Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-05U-1032, which was thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Hero Honda Motorcycle. From perusal of the impugned award at internal page 6, it appears that the appellant- Insurance Company has miserably failed to adduce evidence in support of its version nor any document has been brought on record to substantiate the pleading nor owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-05U-1032 has been examined by the Insurance Company to refute the claim of the claimant. The judgment relied upon in the case of Smt. Benu Karmakar (supra) is thus, not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. That it appears that deceased was working in the Jharkhand Steel Manufacturing Company and also doing business of sale- purchase of scrap iron and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from that business. From perusal of the

-3- impugned award, it appears that deceased- Gopal Prasad had died at the age of 48 years and thus multiplier of 13 has been applied in view of the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 13. There was variation in the income of the deceased. From Exhibits-4 to 4/2, the income tax return of Financial Year 2006-2007 shows the income of deceased as Rs.1,01,866/- per annum and in the Financial Year 2007-2008 and Financial Year 2008-2009 and assessment year 2009-2010 in computer generated. As such, learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. Thus being a married person, who died leaving behind the sole dependent as legal heir, the personal and living expenses has been deducted as 1/3rd in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus Rs.1,08,000/- comes to Rs.9,000/- per month and after 1/3rd deduction of Rs.1,08,000/- minus Rs.36,000/, it comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. After multiplying it with multiplier of 13 it becomes Rs.9,36,000/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium as Rs.30,000/-, funeral expenses as Rs.10,000/- and loss of Estate and love and affection as Rs.20,000/- which comes to Rs.60,000/- which ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- in view of paragraph 59.8 of the judgment National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (i.e. loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium as Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/-). 14. Thus, it appears to this Court, that even under the conventional head, less amount has been paid by the learned Tribunal, but no appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the award. 15. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that though the deceased died at the age of 48 years, but no amount under future prospect has been given by the learned Tribunal. Apart from this, this Court is also conscious of the fact that interest ought to have been awarded @ 7.5% per annum as simple interest in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4), JCR 79 (SC)/ (2008) 12 SCC 208, but in the present case interest @6% per annum has been granted from the date of filing of the claim application. 16. Since no appeal has been preferred by the claimant/respondent for enhancement of the award, as such, this Court is not looking into such things rather on merits instead of enhancing the amount of compensation, this Court feels deemed it to be proper, just and reasonable compensation. Thus, this Court is not inclined to

-4- interfere with the same, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 18. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, I.A. No.7561 of 2017 filed for condonation of delay and I.A. No.5708 of 2020 filed for stay of the execution case, both are hereby closed. 19. It is expected that since the occurrence is of dated 24.06.2009, the appellant- Oriental Insurance Company Limited must indemnify the impugned award within a period of 90 days from today. 20. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount deposited, while preferring an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of filing of the Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, to the Claim Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today so as to pay the same to the claimant after due notice and verification.

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) sandeep/R.S-