1. Shankar Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Tilak Singh (Father of the v. 1. Awdhesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Village – Kheron
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 456 of 2023 1. Shankar Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Tilak Singh (Father of the deceased Sanjit Kumar Singh) 2. Manwa Devi, aged about 53 years, wife of Shankar Singh (Mother of the deceased Sanjit Kumar Singh) Both resident of village – Kheron, P.O. – Deochanda, P.S. – Barhi, District - Hazaribagh … … Appellant Versus 1. Awdhesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Village – Kheron, P.O. – Doechanda, P.S. – Barhi, District – Hazaribagh. 2. Shankar Kumar Singh, son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, resident of village – Kheron, P.O. – Deochanda, P.S. – Barhi, District - Hazaribagh. 3. National Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. M.R. Complex, Indrapuri Chowk, Near Okani More, Pagmal Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh, PIN 825301 CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY … … Respondents --- For the Appellant For the Resp. No.3
Legal Reasoning
--- : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Prakash, Advocate --- 05/29.07.2024 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and as per the cause title they are full brothers. 3. The notice with respect to respondent No. 1 and 2 was received by respondent No. 2 who is the full brother of respondent No. 1 and accordingly, the notice is accepted to have been validly served. However, nobody has entered appearance on their behalf. 4. This appeal has been filed for the following reliefs:- “The impugned Judgment and award dated 26.8.2019 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Hazaribagh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 51 of 2016 is bad in law, illegal and disproportionate 1 to death of the appellants’ son due to road accident caused by a Bus bearing No. BR-21B-9311 owned by Respondent No.1.” 5. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 51 of 2016 and the claimants are appellants before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was 20 years of age and was a daily wage labourer and also an agriculturist. It was claimed on behalf of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month but no documentary evidence was produced and the learned court also recorded that the oral evidences brought forth on this point did not appear wholly cogent and convincing and did not inspire confidence. 7. The learned counsel submits that admittedly the accident occurred in the month of December, 2015 and the learned court referred to the price index of the year to assess the income of the deceased and assessed the income to be @ Rs. 3,600/- per month by observing that an earning of Rs. 120/- per day by a person of 20 years of age in 2015 cannot be held to be on higher side rather it appeared reasonable and thereafter the annual income was taken as Rs. 3,600/- X 12 = Rs. 43,200/- per annum. 8. The learned counsel while assailing the impugned judgment and award on the point of quantum of compensation has submitted that the learned court ought to have considered the minimum wages if no evidence was forthcoming from the side of the claimant and at least it had come that the deceased was a labourer and also an agriculturist. 9. She has submitted that while assessing the income, the learned court has just made a guest work and even the price index which was prevalent in 2015 has not been mentioned in the impugned award. 10. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned court has wrongly awarded interest inasmuch as the interest was required to 2 be awarded from the date of filing the claim till payment but the learned court has directed payment of compensation within 30 days and only upon default there is a direction for payment of interest. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has produced a copy of the schedule with respect to the minimum wages as on 31.12.2015 and has submitted that even for agriculture labour the minimum wages was Rs. 210/- per day. He has submitted that the award can be modified by this Court on the basis of the minimum wages instead of remanding the matter to the court concerned for fresh consideration on this point. 12. So far as the interest is concerned, he has submitted that the interest also can be awarded from the date of filing the claim till payment @ 6% per annum. The learned counsel has also submitted a copy of calculation sheet by taking the minimum wages at Rs. 210/- per day. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 20 years of age and was unmarried. 13. The calculation sheet is forwarded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is as follows:- “1 Month: Rs. 210/- X 30 = Rs. 6300/- per month. 12 months X Rs. 6300/- = Rs. 75,600/- Future Prospect 40% = Rs 30, 240/- Net Income = Rs. 1,05,840/- Deduction towards living and future expense: Rs. 1,05,840/ 2 = Rs 52,920/- After deduction annual contribution: Rs. 1,05,840 – 52,920= Rs.52,920/- Multiplier 18 X 52920 = Rs.9,52,560/- Contribution = Rs. 40,000/- Loss of state = Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expense = Rs. 15,000/- Total = Rs. 10,22,560/-” 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the sole point for consideration in the present case is with regard 3 to quantum of compensation. The perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned court has recorded that no reliable evidence was produced in connection with the amount of income of the deceased. However, it has been recorded that the deceased was a young man of 20 years and was free from any ailment and he was supporting his father and mother. The learned court while quantifying the compensation has mentioned that price index in the month of December, 2015 would be taken and has assessed the income @ Rs. 3,600/- per month without mentioning as to what was the price index at the relevant point of time with further observation that an earning of Rs. 120/- per day by a person of 20 years of age in 2015 cannot be held to be on higher side rather it appeared reasonable. 15. The impugned order reflects that the learned court has taken the income at Rs. 3,600/- per month without referring to the price index for December, 2015 and also not even considered the minimum wages which could have been earned by the deceased as was applicable in the year 2015 as per the notification. The minimum wages as on 31.12.2015 as produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company under the heading for agriculture was Rs. 210/- per day for the State of Jharkhand. 16. Consequently, the income taken by the learned court @ Rs. 3,600/- per month without any basis cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it calls for interference. On the face of aforesaid notification which has been produced, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased is fit to be fixed on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the State of Jharkhand as on 31.12.2015. 17. The impugned award is accordingly modified and enhanced to an amount of Rs. 10,22,560/-. 18. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, this Court finds that the learned court has recorded that the case was instituted on 07.04.2016 and was admitted on 22.02.2017 and after opposite parties entered appearance, the issue got settled on 20.11.2018 and since then the inquiry commenced and the claimant’s evidence continued till 22.06.2019 and there was no delay in adducing evidence by the 4 opposite party and in such circumstances the learned court recorded that the claimant would not be entitled for interest on compensation amount if the payment was made within the period of 30 days from the order. It was further observed that upon failure to pay, interest @ 6 % per annum would be payable till final realization of the award. 19. This court is of the considered view that the payment of interest is essentially compensatory in nature and the respondents having enjoyed the money, are bound to pay the amount with interest from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. 20. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 2021 decided on 01st October, 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed payment of interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 21. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interest ought to have been awarded from the date of filing the claim till payment. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum simple from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment on the aforesaid quantified amount of compensation Rs. 10,22,560/-. 22. The impugned judgement and award is modified to the
Decision
aforesaid extent. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Rakesh/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5