IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Smt. Shakuntala Devi, wife of late Kailash Modi – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Barnwal, son of Jageshwar Burnwal – Respondent
M.A. No. 216 of 2013
Decided on : 20-01-2023
M.V. Act - Compensation Calculation - 16 SCC 680, 2009 6 SCC 121 - The court discussed the law on quantum of compensation and the calculation method for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It referred to the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 to determine the appropriate multiplier and income computation for compensation. The court modified the award based on the principles laid down in these judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition was filed for compensation due to the death of an individual in a road accident. The appellants contested the quantum of compensation based on the age of the deceased as per the post-mortem report and other documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the award based on the principles laid down in the judgments of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. It calculated the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation of compensation amount based on the age of the deceased and the appropriate multiplier, as well as the conventional heads for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 to determine the appropriate multiplier and income computation for compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the award and directed the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount to the claimants within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. By order dated 09.02.2022, the notice upon the respondent No. 1 was found to be validly served, however, nobody has responded on his behalf in spite of repeated calls.
2. The present appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum-P.O., M.V. Act, III-Giridih, in Claim Case No. 34 of 2006.
3. The claim petition was instituted by the claimants for @ lump sum compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the realization of the said compensation amout on account of death of one Kailash Modi (aged about 50 years) in a road accident arising out of use of motor vehicle bearing registration number WB-40-L-3877, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2 namely United India Insurance Company Limited.
4. Mr. Arvind Kumal Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal although has allowed the claim, however, he has failed to appreciate the law on the point of quantum. He submits that in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was found about 60 years, whereas the appellants have produced the ration card, which is Exhibit-11 and voter identity card, which is also Exhibit-10, wherein the age of the deceased was found 52 and 51 years respectively. He submits that in view of the matter, the payment upon considering the age is required to be considered in the light of para-59.4 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which reads as under:-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the multiplier has been put as 5, where it should be 7 in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra), wherein the case of Sarla Verma’s case [reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121] has been dealt with, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-42 has held as follows:-
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657]), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, as laid down in the judgments of National Insurance Co....
There is no justification for the learned Tribunal to award interest from date of filing the evidence on affidavit.
Fatal accident – Age of deceased is the basis for applying suitable multiplier and compensation is to be determined keeping in view future prospects.
The applicable multiplier for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must be determined based on the age of the deceased, as established in the decisions of Pranay Sethi(supra) and Sarla Ver....
Compensation calculations in motor accident claims must include allowances and future prospects, with appropriate multipliers based on the deceased's age.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.