The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the deceased's income, future prospects, deductions, multiplier, and conventional heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sarvendra Kumar has submitted that inadvertently in memo of appeal, at para-12 (part), 13 & 14, it has been stated that nothing has been paid to the appellants in terms of the award, as such, the same may be expunged or may be ignored from the miscellaneous appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Alok Lal assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Santosh Kumar has no objection.

3. Accordingly, part of para-12, 13 & 14 of the memo of appeal are hereby deleted.

M.A. No. 73 of 2018

4. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sarvendra Kumar and learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. Alok Lal assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Santosh Kumar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appeal has been preferred by the claimants namely, (1) Rekha Devi, wife of Late Hemlal @ Gango Yadav, (2) Kajal Kumari, minor daughter of Late Hemlal @ Gango Yadav, (3) Suraj Yadav minor son of Late Hemlal @ Gango Yadav and (4) Karan Yadav, minor son of Late Hemlal @ Gango Yadav (claimant nos. 2 to 4 are minors and represented by their mother and natural guardian claimant no. 1 namely, Rekha Devi), for enhancement of the award dated 06.05.2017 passed by learned District Judge-IX-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 197/2016, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,85,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the awarded amount.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered less income of the deceased, who was a Khalashi having an earning Rs. 300/-per day with Rs. 50/-as food charge.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered and under the conventional head, less amount has been paid, as such, this Court may consider the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639, of which para-8 may be profitably quoted:-

“8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.”

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 – The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. Alok Lal assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Santosh Kumar has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income to be Rs. 200/-per day against the claim of Rs. 300/-per day, as the minimum wages for semi skilled labour as notified by the Government of Jharkhand in the year 2016 was Rs. 276/-. The Government has notified the rate for unskilled labour to be Rs. 264.08, semi-skilled labour to be Rs. 276.00, skilled labour to be Rs. 369.28 and highly skilled labour to be Rs. 420.44, as such, this Court may not enhance the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has further submitted that interest has been granted @ 9% per annum contrary to the judgment