The main legal point established is the determination of compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act by considering various judgments.

JUDGMENT :

KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Birendra Kumar and learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. D.C. Ghose.

2. Appellants/claimants namely (i) Smt. Margina Bibi (ii) Suleman Khan @ Bablu (Minor) (iii) Raiyesh Khan (Minor) (iv) Sabnam Khatun (Minor) (minors are represented through their natural guardian mother Smt. Margina Bibi,) (v) Md. Abdul Khan and (vi) Smt. Taibun Nisha, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of Award dated 15.09.2014 passed by learned District Judge-IX-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 137/2010, whereby claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,02,000/- after deducting Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of recovery.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7500/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi and Others vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, 2019 (4) TAC 724 (SC), where the Apex Court has considered the income of deceased, who was a Carpenter for the incident took place in the year 2002 to be Rs. 5,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence, as such, this Court may consider the same.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted future prospect of the deceased contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Paragraph-59.4). Since the deceased died at the age of 35 years, as such, the claimants are entitled for 40% of the future prospect.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 20,000/- contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (Supra), it ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been granted @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of recovery, which ought to have been granted @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual indemnifying the award in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC).

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that the amount may be enhanced as it is not just and fair compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2011 (14) SCC 639 (Para-8), the Court has to consider 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.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the vehicle is duly insured before the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award, as such, the liability can be fastened to the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount as the awarded amount has already been indemnified by the Insurance Company on 14.10.2014.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. D.C. Ghose has submitted that it is an old case, in which compensation amount has already been indemnified, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

10. Consi