Pramesh Prasad Gupta Lila Gupta 1. 2 v. 1. The Branch Manager
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI M.A. No. 570 of 2019 Pramesh Prasad Gupta Lila Gupta 1. 2. Versus 1. The Branch Manager, …Appellants Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi. 2. Mr. M. Sanjeev (Proprietor) Ajay Marble and Granite Hotel Sarovata No. 9 Residency Road, Richmond Circle, Bangalore, Karnataka …Opposite Parties With M.A. No. 74 of 2021 Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. …Appellant 1. Versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Pramesh Prasad Gupta 2. Lila Gupta 3. Mr. M. Sanjeev (Proprietor) …Applicants/ Respondents Ajay Marble and Granite Hotel Sarovata No. 9 Rsidency Road, Richmond Circle, P.O. & P.S. Ashok Nagar, Karnataka …Opposite Party/ respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants For the Respondent --- --- : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate (M.A. No. 570 of 2019) Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate (M.A. No. 74 of 2021) : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate (M.A. No. 570 of 2019) Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate (M.A. No. 74 of 2021) 13/27.06.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. 2. The owner of the vehicle in question has already been received notice and in view of the order dated 08.05.2024 notice upon the owner of the vehicle in question has been deemed to be validly served. Both the appeals are arising out of the same award and in view of that both the appeals are heard together with the consent of the parties. M.A. No. 570 of 2019 3. The present M.A. is filed by the claimants challenging the part of the award dated 23.04.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 1 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021 Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 294 of 2011. 4. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the said claim case was instituted at the instance of the appellants stating therein: That on 09.08.10 at about 11.27 P.M. deceased namely Amit Kumar was returning to his residence riding Motorcycle registration No. KH-03EE-1575 after discharging his duty at Big Bazar, Bangalore while he reached near J. C. Road Avinash Enterprises, Bangalore, P.S.-Halasur Gate, District- Bangalore City offending vehicle Water Tanker registration No. CAS-3018 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against him resulting he sustained grievous injuries upon his person and dragged the Motorcycle up to distance about 15 ft. He was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for treatment where died on 10.08.10 at about 12.10 Α. M. soon after the accident. For causing the alleged Accident FIR was lodged vide Halasur Gate Traffic P.S. Case No. 59/10, dated 10.08.10 against driver of Water Tanker registration No. CAS-3018 for the offense u/s 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134A & B read with Section 187 of M. V. Act. Postmortem upon his dead body was conducted at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and report submitted vides P.M. Report No. 2171/10, dated 10.08.10. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against driver namely Manjappa B driving the offending vehicle Water Tanker registration No. CAS-3018 for the offense u/s 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134A & B read with Section 187 of M. V. Act. vide charge sheet No. 80/10, dated 03.12.10. Deceased was unmarried, therefore, his parents have filed instant claim application being his legal heirs and successors on the basis that at the time of death he was aged about 28 years and was getting salary amount of Rs. 34,251/- from the employer Future Value Retail Ltd. at the post of Department Manager, Big Bazar, Bangalore, BMTC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court has inadequately assessed the claim to the tune of Rs. 51,10,738/- only and the appellants are entitled for enhanced amount. He submits that RS. 2 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021 50,000/- was received in terms of section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in view of that Rs. 50,000/- was deducted from the awarded amount which was said to be Rs. 50,60,738/-. He submits that the said award is required to be interfered on the two grounds. He further submits that so far as the conventional head is concerned Rs. 40,000/- each is required to be paid to each of the claimants and further in view of the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Shetty and others reported in 2017(16) SCC 686, 10% enhancement in every three years is required which has not been done in the case. He further submits that the interest part is wrongly directed to be paid with effect from the date of the award where it is general principal that it should be from the date of filing of the application. He submits that the tribunal has granted 9% per annum from the date of award. On this ground, he submits that this award may kindly be modified. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the payer on the ground that Pranay Shetty (supra) still holds the field, and the conventional head 40,000/- for each of the claimants is not the law at present. She submits that in some of the cases the different High Courts have allowed the said prayer of 40,000/- to each of the claimants which has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023 in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and others. She further submits that the learned tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion in view of the fact that the matter was delayed by the claimants and that’s why the interest part was rightly directed to be paid w.e.f. from the date of award. On this ground he submits that there is no interference is required in this case. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted position that the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the loss of consortium the total compassionate amount granted to the total amount is Rs. 70,000/- and consortium is Rs. 40,000/- The Court finds that the learned tribunal has rightly awarded the amount in terms of the Pranay Shetty (Supra) case. However, the learned court has not considered this aspect of the matter that of the every three years 3 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021 there should be enhancement of 10% under the said head. In view of that the part of the order is modified to the effect that 10% should be enhanced in terms of Pranay Shetty (Supra) under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. This is a beneficial piece of legislature. It is well settled that general interest are being allowed from the date of filing of the application whereas the learned tribunal has awarded the same from the date of award. Further it is said to be 9% per annum this 9% is against the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and others vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008(12) SCC 208 and in view of that the interest should be at 7.5% from the date of petition. From the As such the interest part is modified to the effect and the appellants is entitled for the interest of 7.5 % w.e.f. the date of filing of the application. 8.
Decision
In view of the above the award is modified to the above extent. M.A. No. 74 of 2021 9. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the validity and legality of the award dated 23.04.2019 arising out of Accident Claim Case No. 294 of 2011. 10. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the facts have already been noted in the earlier being M.A. No. 570 of 2019. She submits that the insurance company has come to this Court with a prayer to reduce the amount in question on the ground that he was only a management trainee in view of that 50% of the salary was wrongly awarded in place of 40% in view of the Pranay Shetty (Supra). She further submits that the insurance company has called upon the owner of the vehicle in question produce the driving license and in spite of that the driving license was not produced by the owner in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vindo Kumar Lamba and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 particularly in paragraph 12 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle 4 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021 was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license. She submits that once the owner come and prove his fact then only the liability can be fasten upon the insurance company. However, the learned tribunal has wrongly fastened the entire liability on the insurance company and the recovery is not ordered in favour of the insurance company from the owner. On these grounds, she submits that the award may kindly be modified. She submits that in view of the valid service the owner has not appeared before the tribunal as well as in the present appeal. 11. In view of the above submission, the learned counsel for the claimants opposed the prayer on the ground that the learned court has rightly granted 50% on the future prospect and he further submits that he has got no objection with regard to the recovery by the insurance company from the owner of vehicle in question. 12. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the learned tribunal has examined the letter of offer and the appointment letter of the deceased. In the appointment letter it was clearly stated that the deceased was working as a management trainee. In view of that it can be said that the deceased was on a permanent job and this aspect has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (Supra) in the paragraph 59.3 and 59.4 which are as under: “59.3 : While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 5 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021 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.” 13. In view of the above judgment it is crystal clear that the permanent job was not there then under that head 40% future prospect is required to be considered and the learned tribunal has made it to the 50% and as such the award is modified to the extent of 40% as future prospects, claimants will be entitled under the head of future prospect. 14. This Court finds force in the arguments of the learned counsel of the insurance company with regard to the recovery of the awarded amount in view of the judgment relied by her in Pappu and Others (Supra) as such the insurance company will satisfy the award to the claimants and will be entitled to recover from the owner of the vehicle in question. In view of above is modified to the above effect. 15. These appeals are allowed in part and disposed of. 16. It is made clear that the award will be satisfied in totality by the insurance company within four weeks. It is further made clear that the amount already received by the claimants will be deducted is satisfying the further award. The amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court will be transmitted back to the learned court which will be utilized in satisfying the rest of the award. 17. The M.A. No. 570 of 2019 and M.A. No. 74 of 2021 appeals in above terms allowed in part and disposed of. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also disposed of. MM/AFR (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 6 of 6 M.A. No. 570 of 2019 M.A. No. 74 of 2021