Hazaribag (Now Ramgarh) vs Road, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.- Hazaribag (Insurance policy no.

5. Learned tribunal first took up issue no. (iii) and considering the oral testimonies of the three witnesses examined by the claimants as well as the documents in the record filed by the claimants, concluded that Bhuneshwar Mahto died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti van. Thereafter, learned tribunal took up issue no. (iv) and considering the fact that CW 2 and CW3 - the witnesses examined by the claimants have stated that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was deployed on hire and as per the insurance policy, the policy 3 M.A. 507 of 2014 certificate was issued for private use of vehicle, hence, learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy, by plying his private vehicle for hire but as the insurance policy was valid and effective at the time of the accident, therefore learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimant with a right to recover the compensation amount from the opposite party no. 1- the owner of the Maruti Van. Thereafter, learned tribunal took up issue no. (v) and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month and applied multiplier of 18, deducted 1/3rd of the amount of income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by awarding Rs.12,000/- under the conventional head, arrived at total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and passed the said judgment and award, as already indicated above.

6. Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal could not properly appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is next submitted by Mr. Mahto that in view of settled principle of law in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, para 37 of which reads as under: “37. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] , Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] and Munna Lal Jain [Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 315 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 195] . Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paras 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] lays down : (SCC p. 136) “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. Xxxxxxxxx 4 M.A. 507 of 2014 since undisputedly, the deceased was having four dependents being the four claimants, learned tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and erred by deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses.

7. Mr. Nehru next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, para 59.4 of which reads as under: “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” and submits that learned tribunal ought to have added 40% of the income of the deceased towards the future prospects and learned tribunal erred by not adding the same. It is next submitted that the tribunal ought to have awarded the interest on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application and learned tribunal also erred by not doing so.

8. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Nehru Mahto that since learned tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased between 27 years to 31 years, so, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied by the tribunal instead of multiplier of 18, in view of the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, para 40 of which reads as under: “40. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] (for claims under Section 166 of the MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years): Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) Up to 15 yrs 15 to 20 21 to 25 (2) - 16 15 (3) - 18 17 (4) - 18 18 (5) 15 16 17 (6) 20 19 18 5 M.A. 507 of 2014 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 45 46 to 50 51 to 55 56 to 60 61 to 65 Above 65 yrs 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 08 05 17 16 15 14 13 11 09 07 05 18 17 16 15 13 11 8 5 5 17 16 15 14 12 10 8 6 5

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, para

59.8 of which reads as under: “59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” learned tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head and it erred by awarding a meager amount of Rs.12,000/- under conventional head. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Nehru impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.

10. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand defends the impugned judgment and award and submits that any amount in excess of the amount already awarded, will amount to windfall for the claimants and learned tribunal having rightly awarded the compensation amount, the same need not be enhanced and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available the records, following points determination which crop up in this appeal are : (i) Whether the amount of compensation awarded is to be enhanced? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim application?

12. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), this court has no hesitation in holding that learned tribunal erred by deducting 1/3rd of 6 M.A. 507 of 2014 the income of the deceased towards his personal expense though undisputedly, there were four dependents upon him and learned tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expense.

13. In view of the para 59.4 of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), learned tribunal certainly erred by not adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

14. Further in view of para 59.8 of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), learned tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head and erred by awarding a meager amount of Rs.12,000/-. As fairly submitted by Mr. Nehru Mahto, since the age of the deceased was assessed as 27-30 years, the tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 17 instead of 18.

15. In view of the discussion made above, since the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.2,000/- as pleaded by the claimants themselves in the claim application, so his annual income comes to Rs.24,000/- and adding 40% to that, towards the future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.33,600/- and deducting 1/4th of same, towards the personal expense, the amount comes to Rs.25,200/- and applying the multiplier 17, the amount comes to Rs.4,28,400/-, and adding Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head, the amount comes Rs.4,98,400/-. Accordingly, the New India insurance company is directed to pay the said amount to the claimants with the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as mentioned in the impugned judgment and award. The first point for determination is answered accordingly.

16. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, it is settled principle of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme court of India, in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, para-31 of which reads as under:-

31. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs.14,70,000 and awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a. but directed that the interest of 7.5% shall be paid only from the date of filing of the appeal. This is also incorrect. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was not right in awarding interest on the enhanced amount only from the date of filing of the appeal. Section 171 of the Act reads as follows: 7 M.A. 507 of 2014 “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.—Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date. However, while doing so, the Tribunals/High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, we direct that the entire amount of compensation including the amount enhanced by us shall carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. (Emphasis supplied) that normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal, enhancement is made, the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. Further, perusal of the impugned judgment and award reveals that no explanation has been furnished by learned tribunal as to why it has not awarded the interest from the date of the filing of the claim application. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of its actual payment made. The second point for determination is answered accordingly.

17. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified by directing the respondent no. 2- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.4,98,400/- with simple interest thereon @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application to the date of actual payment, less the amount if any paid by it under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 within three months from the date of this judgment with the right to recover the compensation amount paid by it from the owner of the vehicle, as has been provided for in the impugned judgment and award. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.07.2014 passed in claim Case no. 54 of 2007 by learned District Judge V-cum- Presiding Officer, MVACT, Hazaribagh is modified to the aforesaid extent.

18. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part on contest against the respondent No.2 and ex-parte against the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 8 M.A. 507 of 2014

19. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the tribunal concerned forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 15th December, 2022. Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)